Preamble

The House met at half-past Two o'clock

PRAYERS

[Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair]

PETITION

Inverurie Locomotive Works

Mr. James Davidson: I have to present a Petition on behalf of the North-East of Scotland Development Committee, the Corporation of the City of Aberdeen, the County Council of the County of Aberdeen, the provost, magistrates and councillors of the Royal Burghs of Inverurie and Kintore, the burgh of Old-meldrum and the Presbytery of Garioch of the Church of Scotland, all duly signed and sealed.
Their material allegations are
That grave concern is felt throughout the entire areas administered by the Petitioners with regard to the threat of closure of the Inverurie Locomotive Carriage and Wagon Works; that the closure of the said works would create widespread unemployment and unrest in Inverurie and the adjoining area, due to the large number of employees involved and the absence of alternative opportunities of employment; and that it would accelerate the drift of population from the North-East of Scotland towards the over-crowded industrial areas and undermine the economy of the Royal Burgh of Inverurie.
Wherefore your Petitioners pray that the British Railways Board be urged to refrain from closing, or reducing employment at Inverurie Locomotive Carriage and Wagon Works; and in the event of the British Rail ways Board deciding to close the said works, that the British Railways Board be urged to phase the closure over a lengthy period to permit the introduction of alternative forms of employment; and that in the event of the British Railways Board deciding to close the said works, the Inverurie area be granted the status of a special development area and that all appropriate Government Departments be urged to combine in renewed efforts to attract industries to the town of Inverurie and the surrounding area.
And your Petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray.
In addition to the signatures of the chairmen, lord provosts, convenors, pro-

vosts, magistrates, councillors and other officials of the said bodies, the terms of the Petition are supported by over 5,000 signatures.

To lie upon the Table.

Oral Answers to Questions — ECONOMIC AFFAIRS

Draft Planning Document

Mr. Marten: asked the Secretary of State for Economic Affairs what progress has been made in the last month in the consultations with the National Economic Development Council over the planning document he is preparing for discussion with that Council.

Sir G. Nabarro: asked the Secretary of State for Economic Affairs having regard to the revised economic policies announced on 22nd November, 1968, what amendments he now proposes in his revised economic plan for early publication.

Mr. Peyton: asked the Secretary of State for Economic Affairs at what intervals he intends to publish statements of the economic prospects.

Mr. Biffen: asked the Secretary of State for Economic Affairs if he will now state a date when he expects to conclude his discussions on the new planning document with the National Economic Development Council.

Mr. Hordern: asked the Secretary of State for Economic Affairs if he will now state what he expects to conclude his discussions on the new planning document with the National Economic Development Council.

Mr. Lane: asked the Secretary of State for Economic Affairs whether he has yet placed before the National Economic Development Council a planning document assessing the economic prospect up to 1972; and if he will make a statement.

Mr. St. John-Stevas: asked the Secretary of State for Economic Affairs


whether he will confine the number of alternative forecasts of the economic prospects until 1972 to one.

Mr. Bruce-Gardyne: asked the Secretary of State for Economic Affairs if he will make a further statement on the progress of his national planning document.

Mr. Ridsdale: asked the Secretary of State for Economic Affairs if he will make a further statement on the progress of his national planning document.

Mr. Higgins: asked the Secretary of State for Economic Affairs what was the result of his discussion with the National Economic Development Council on the new national planning document.

Mr. Dickens: asked the Secretary of State for Economic Affairs if he will make a statement on the new planning document now in course of preparation.

The Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster (Mr. Frederick Lee): The draft planning document prepared by officials as a basis for discussion by the National Economic Development Council was circulated to members on Monday, 2nd December. It assessed the economic prospect to 1972 in terms of a range of possibilities for economic growth. The draft was not finalised until after 22nd November, 1968, and was, therefore, able to take account of measures announced on that day.
We have had two very good discussions of this draft in the Council; a half-day meeting on Wednesday, 11th December followed by an all-day meeting on Sunday, 15th December. The discussion covered a number of major issues of economic policy, including the priority to be given to the balance of payments, the prospect for the growth of output and employment and the role of private investment and prospects in individual industries.
The Council asked for further work to be done on certain questions which arose in these discussions. This work should be completed in time for further discussion at the next meeting of the Council in January. Ministers will consider the question of publication when their discussions with the Council are concluded.

Mr. Marten: May I send my good wishes and those of the whole House to

the Secretary of State for a speedy and complete recovery from his illness?
As the planning document has now been fully described in the Financial Times, is it not patently absurd, in view of the fact that the Government have appointed a Paymaster-General to increase the participation of the public in the national decision-making of the country, that the same Government should refuse to make this document available? Will the Government publish or be damned?

Mr. Lee: We will certainly not be damned, anyway. I have already said that the document has been produced by officials for discussion at the N.E.D.C. Those discussions are described in my main Answer. We are now working on further papers which we have been asked to produce in time for the January meeting. That meeting will determine whether or not we can get full agreement and, when we have seen how that goes, we can look at the point raised by the hon. Gentleman about publication.

Mr. Peyton: On the question of making forecasts, does not the right hon. Gentleman think that he and his Department would be much better employed going over their past, seeing how wrong their forecasts have been and learning from the deplorable results of those mistakes a degree of modesty which might lead them to refrain from misleading every-body in future?

Mr. Lee: If hon. Members on both sides of the House were to spend their time going back on the ghosts of Christmas past they would not feel too happy about the results. We are now producing a document, which I have described, on a completely new basis and we are confident of the results.

Mr. Hordern: The right hon. Gentleman has still not answered a most important question. Why is it that these proposals and this plan have not been put before the House? Is it true that earnings are to be restricted to an annual average increase of 3½per cent.?

Mr. Lee: Hon. Gentlemen opposite are schizophrenic about this. One of them wants us to be damned, while some of them want us to go on and produce the document. If only they would make up


their minds. To answer the hon. Gentleman's question about the rate of growth, I am not responsible for what appears in the newspapers. I simply said that we are discussing a wide range of possibilities, and that is the fact.

Mr. Lane: Is it true that the document holds out no hope at all for a reduction in the present burden of taxation before 1972? Would the right hon. Gentleman at least undertake to place a Green Paper before the House after the January meeting so that hon. Members have something to be going on with?

Mr. Lee: I said that, in preparation for the January meeting, we are now preparing papers which were asked for at the last meeting of the Council. Those papers will then be analysed and discussed at the meeting; and, at that stage, we will be able to decide whether or not they can be produced. I assure hon. Members that I am taking the feeling of the House and that I do not necessarily dissent from it.

Mr. Bruce-Gardyne: Will the right hon. Gentleman now answer the question asked by my hon. Friend the Member for Horsham (Mr. Hordern)? How do the Government expect to be able to contain the rate of advance in wages during the coming period below the levels achieved during the period of compulsory wage and prices policy?

Mr. Lee: My right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer made it clear in his Budget strategy that the balance of payments really must be brought into surplus. This is something that we thoroughly intend to do in the next year.
The answer to the second part of the hon. Gentleman's supplementary question, which was concerned with living standards, will depend on the rate of growth, and that is going ahead quite well now. I do not see any inconsistency between this and what I have said, which is that we believe that the rate of growth as we are now seeing it will permit of a steady improvement in the standard of living.

Mr. Ridsdale: Does the National Plan say when we will get into surplus, what growth rate we can expect and what level of unemployment is expected over the next year?

Mr. Lee: I hope that the hon. Gentleman, whose pessimism about unemployment I do not share, has seen today's figures, which are very good indeed for the fourth month in succession. [HON. MEMBERS: "Answer".] I have already answered the point by saying that I am not committed to a particular growth rate and that we are working on a number of growth rates.

Mr. Higgins: I join my hon. Friend the Member for Banbury (Mr. Marten) in extending good wishes to the Secretary of State.
Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that it does no good whatever for him to stand at the Dispatch Box telling us that he is not responsible for what appears in the newspapers on this subject? Will he make it plain just who is responsible? Does he appreciate that it does no good for him to rely on Press leaks, either, and that we want this document published so that we may know what is going on and what the document actually says? Will he sec that that is done as quickly as possible?

Mr. Lee: I would answer the hon. Gentleman's question about Press leaks by telling him to render unto Mr. Keegan the things that are Mr. Keegan's.

Mr. Dickens: Is my right hon. Friend aware that there is a broad common desire for this planning document to be published so that there may be the widest possible discussion of it in 1969? Does he recognise that the first priority in such a document should be the need for a 6 per cent. rate of economic growth in 1969 and subsequently and that a document which is founded on a 3½ per cent. growth rate is not worth the paper on which it is written?

Mr. Lee: I have assured the House on three occasions that we are not confined to any specific rate of growth which may have appeared in a newspaper. I accept the need for wide dialogue on this matter. We are doing precisely that in the N.E.D.C. We then intend to discuss these matters in the little N.E.D.C.s with each of the industries—[Interruption.] Hon. Gentlemen opposite cannot have it both ways. We are trying to get as wide a dialogue as possible with industry, a dialogue which, up to now, with the C.B.I. and T.U.C., has been far and away more


constructive than anything I have had this afternoon with hon. Gentlemen opposite.

Mr. Barnett: Is my right hon. Friend aware that while none of us objects to him having consultations with industry, we object strongly to him ignoring the House of Commons? Will he therefore agree and concede now to publish as a White Paper, Green Paper or Yellow Paper the documents which he has submitted to the N.E.D.C. so that we may have consultations, too? Will he also tell his right hon. Friend that it is not only my hon. Friend the Member for Lewisham, West (Mr. Dickens) who will find totally unacceptable a 3½ per cent. rate of growth and that if we are to have any growth rate at all it must be a much higher one than that? Will he—

Mr. Speaker: Order. Questions must be reasonably brief.

Mr. Barnett: I was just about to conclude my supplementary question, Mr. Speaker.
Will my right hon. Friend say whether he is basing this policy on needing a£500 million balance of payments surplus and, if so, for how many years he has such a surplus in mind?

Mr. Lee: Questions concerning the continuity of surpluses of this type must be addressed to my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer. I hope that my hon. Friend will accept what I said earlier; that this document was produced by officials for discussion within the N.E.D.C. One cannot present to Parliament a document which is not in any way finalised—[HON. MEMBERS: "Why not?"] I am explaining why—and which has not yet even been discussed adequately with our colleagues in the N.E.D.C. When we have completed that stage, the question of publication will arise. I have said—[Interruption.]

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Hon. Members: Answer.

Mr. Lee: Hon. Members are entitled to ask questions. I am entitled to give the answers.
I have explained that we are not saying that there is no hope of the document being published. We should like to see that point arise, but we must have some-

thing through which the N.E.D.C. can discuss these matters. [Interruption.] We must have a document which has been accepted and agreed by ourselves and our colleagues in the N.E.D.C.

Mr. Iain Macleod: Would the right hon. Gentleman undertake to put personally to the Prime Minister the very strong feeling that clearly there is on both sides of the House about the question of publication? Does he realise that the danger is of creating an entirely new category? If this is to be a private paper for the N.E.D.C, we can understand that, but in that case there should have been no Press conference and no leaks. This House has a right to be informed in front of the Press on matters of this importance.

Mr. Lee: I do not disagree with one word uttered by the right hon. Gentleman. Certainly, on the question of publication, I will discuss the matter with the Prime Minister. I must not be interpreted as saying that we are opposed to the document's publication. I have not said that.
To answer the right hon. Gentleman's question about Press leaks, when he was in Ministerial office there were Press leaks as well. [Interruption.] What I have said in this respect is that this kind of paper must be given to the N.E.D.C. We have done that on a confidential basis. I cannot say from where the leaks came. When one is discussing a matter of this kind with a large body of people, certainly the Government cannot pretend—[Interruption.]—I do not know why hon. Gentlemen opposite will not listen to my answers. I have said that at this stage the document is not mete for publication because it has not been accepted.

Several Hon. Members: rose—

Mr. Speaker: Order. Supplementary questions and answers should be reasonably brief. We have many Questions to get through.

Mr. Sheldon: Is my right hon. Friend aware that what perturbs many people is the fact that a group of people sitting in "Chequers" are deciding the economic growth potential of this country over the next few years? Is he also aware that this is a matter of such serious importance that we must have an early debate


on it and that the papers must be presented to the House so that we, too, can take part in this discussion?

Mr. Lee: The House is rightly jealous of its position in this matter. I have given an assurance that nothing that we are doing detracts from our responsibility to the House of Commons, but that we must have this dialogue with industry to make sure that that which we produce stands up when industry examines it, and that we shall then want to discuss relevant matters with the House of Commons.

Mr. St. John-Stevas: Reverting to the point of substance, could not the right hon. Gentleman get either prediction or results right? What is intolerable is to get both wrong.

Mr. Lee: We are very optimistic about getting both right this time.

Mr. Marten: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. In view of the unsatisfactory nature of the Minister's reply, I beg to give notice that I shall seek to raise the matter on the Adjournment at the earliest moment.

Development Areas (Employment)

Mr. Ridley: asked the Secretary of State for Economic Affairs what steps he plans to take to contain the rise in the cost per job to public funds of providing employment in the development areas, in view of its rise from£1,130 in 1964–65 to£7,770 in 1967–68.

The Minister of State, Department of Economic Affairs (Mr. T. W. Urwin): I do not accept the hon. Member's figures, and would refer him to my reply to his similar Question on 14th November. We intend to continue to strengthen the economy of the development areas, including the provision there of new employment.

Mr. Ridley: If the Minister of State cannot accept my figures, why has he not published his own? Is he aware that these figures are derived from Parliamentary Answers? Does he not realise that no one will believe him until he is brave enough to publish the true figures?

Mr. Urwin: I would advise the hon. Gentleman that it is virtually impossible for him to calculate, on the evidence available to him, and reach the conclu-

sion that he has apparently arrived at. In fact, the only development area assistance which is strictly and specifically relevant to the provision of new jobs is under the Local Employment Acts, and the figure is£630 per job.

Mr. Blenkinsop: Is my hon. Friend aware that on this side of the House, if not on the other, there is a strong feeling that he should resist any attempt to reduce the support being given to development areas as long as unemployment is as high as it still is in many of our constituencies?

Mr. Urwin: I take note of my hon. Friend's point. I am sure that he will be aware that the policies in train are having the desired effect in the development areas, and I cannot see any possibility of reduction at this stage.

Miss Herbison: Will my hon. Friend ensure that neither pressure from the hon. Member for Cirencester and Tewkesbury (Mr. Ridley) nor from the Leader of the Opposition will turn the Government aside from continuing their very fine work in the development areas until we are assured of what is the most important thing for any man, which is that he has a job and is able to care for his family?

Mr. Urwin: I am sure that the whole House—or at least hon. Members on this side—will note what my right hon. Friend says. I appreciate the point she makes. In the economic debate just two or three weeks ago, the Leader of the Opposition described the area incentives as a Shibboleth. It is high time that the Opposition came fully into the open and told the country, as well as the House, their attitude towards the generation of new employment opportunities in those areas.

Mr. Patrick Jenkin: Is the Minister of State aware that the root of the question lies in the argument about value for money; that we on this side do not share the optimism exhibited on the benches opposite that the Government are getting value for money in terms of new jobs? Will he not recognise that there is a very good case for increasing spending on the infrastructure rather than individually subsidising individual firms?

Mr. Urwin: It must be understood that a good deal of time is needed to gauge the influence of particular aspects of incentives. I would suggest to the hon.


Gentleman that the figures of industrial development certificates show that the combination of assistance to both labour-intensive and capital-intensive industries is attracting a large number of new jobs. We are not complacent about the position, but the development areas as a whole have been strengthening their industrial basis.

Capital Investment

Mr. Hastings: asked the Secretary of State for Economic Affairs what proportion of the gross national product he estimates will be taken up by the manufacturing and construction industries between 1968 and 1972.

Mr. Alison: asked the Secretary of State for Economic Affairs what estimate he has made of the proportion of the gross national product in 1972 that will be absorbed by manufacturing and construction investment.

Mr. Ridsdale: asked the Secretary of State for Economic Affairs what estimates he has made of the proportion of the gross national product over the next five years that will be absorbed by manufacturing and construction investment.

Mr. Dickens: asked the Secretary of State for Economic Affairs what estimate he has made of the proportion of gross national product which will be devoted to capital investment in the period 1969 to 1972.

The Under-Secretary of State for Economic Affairs (Mr. Alan Williams): In consultation with the N.E.D.C, we are discussing the implication of a range of possible growth rates of output and investment up to 1972. The need to increase productivity and to switch resources into exports and import saving clearly implies that output and investment in manufacturing should be higher in relation to total national product than in the past.

Mr. Hastings: Is it not a clear fact at the present time that the figure for out investment is lower than it is amongst any of our industrial competitors? Now that these consultations are at an end, can the Under-Secretary of State tell the House clearly what proposals he has

made, and what ideas he has, for improving the position?

Mr. Williams: On the first point, the hon. Gentleman has to take into account the fact that the ratio between ourselves and Germany and ourselves and Japan has improved since this Government came into office and that, in fact, while hon. and right hon. Gentlemen opposite were in office we were virtually at the bottom of the league table in investment terms throughout that last decade. As to our industrial competitors, the hon. Gentleman should bear in mind that in investment terms we invest proportionately more than the United States.

Mr. Ridsdale: Is it not the fact that Japanese and German investment has gone down rather than that ours has gone up? Does not the hon. Gentleman realise that if we want more investment, we must have a Government that do not attack capital, do not tax capital, and have a progressive attitude towards savings?

Mr. Williams: On the last occasion when the hon. Member raised this question I pointed out that, taking the last five years, during the three years that we have been in office the investment ratio in relation to G.N.P. has been better than when hon. and right hon. Gentlemen were in office. As to confidence, I should have thought that the mischievous efforts of the Leader of the Opposition have certainly been damaging nationally and inter nationally.

Mr. Dickens: Will my hon. Friend agree that one way to get rid of capital investment is to go for a sustained rate of economic growth, and to prevent an excessive outflow of private capital to advanced countries abroad?

Mr. Williams: I agree completely with my hon. Friend. This was the whole point of the exercise which my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster was trying to describe, amidst the catermauling of hon. Members opposite, when replying to Question No. 1.

Mr. Ogden: If the level of investment is as disgracefully low as hon. Members opposite suggest, what is happening to the hundreds of millions of£s which this Government are giving to private investment?

Mr. Williams: This is having to be done, in fact, in order to encourage private industry to invest with a sense of social responsibility which it has not had in terms of regional development.

North-West

Mr. Rose: asked the Secretary of State for Economic Affairs taking the national average at 100, what is the proportion of public expenditure per head of population spent in the North-West area and Scotland, respectively.

Mr. Blaker: asked the Secretary of State for Economic Affairs how public expenditure per head of population in the North-West Region compares with the national average.

Mr. Urwin: Most items of public expenditure are not separately identifiable for English regions, and it is not possible to give either of the comparisons asked for.

Mr. Rose: Is it not a fact that twice as much per head is spent in Scotland as is spent in the North-West of England? In view of the special problems of smoke pollution, dereliction and slum clearance in the North-West, will my hon. Friend undertake to try to close this gap? Is he aware that on the basis of these figures, there would be a very good case for a Lancastrian Nationalist Party?

Mr. Urwin: Replying to my hon. Friend's point about the Scottish position, if we take the national average for Great Britain as being 100, the corresponding identifiable figure for Scotland is 123, but I would repeat what I said about the difficulty of extracting individual regional figures in order to make a comparison with Scotland.

Mr. Blaker: The hon. Gentleman may find difficulty in giving any figures in answer to the Question, but is he aware that his right hon. Friend the Minister of Public Building and Works gave me some figures on this topic two days ago which showed that in 1966 and 1967 expenditure on new construction by the public sector per head of population was 20 per cent. and 17 per cent. lower in the North-West Region than the national average? Is not that position disgraceful?

Mr. Urwin: There is an essential difference between those p.e. figures and the construction figures, as I know the hon. Gentleman will appreciate. There are other figures. I note those he quotes from the Ministry of Public Building and Works, and I note his concern, but that is not in accord with the Question on the Order Paper.

Mr. Higgins: Is the Minister aware that his initial Answer was remarkably evasive? In order that we can see whether there is any credibility in this, can he say which economic services can be broken down and which cannot be broken down?

Mr. Urwin: The public expenditure figures are made up of all sections of public expenditure. If we talk in terms of per capita figures it is even more difficult to arrive at this conclusion because the requirements of areas vary so widely. They are so very considerably different that to talk in terms of per capita means nothing at all. I seriously doubt the percentage figures for the North-West previously quoted by the hon. Member for Blackpool, South (Mr Blaker).

Mr. Blaker: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. In view of the unsatisfactory nature of the reply, I beg to give notice that I shall seek to raise the matter on the Adjournment.

Mr. Fletcher-Cooke: asked the Secretary of State for Economic Affairs what is the result of his discussions with the North-West Economic Planning Council about the Council's document, "Strategy II; The North West of the 70s."

Mr. Arthur Davidson: asked the Secretary of State for Economic Affairs what further representations he has received from the North-West Economic Planning Council on further economic assistance to the region.

Mr. Tilney: asked the Secretary of State for Economic Affairs whether he has now had discussions with the North-West Economic Planning Council over "Strategy II" and the need for further investment in the North-West; and what, in view of his refusal to treat investment per head as a sufficient criterion for making regional comparisons, are his criteria for regional public investment.

Mr. Urwin: My right hon. Friend together with other Ministers concerned, had hoped to meet representatives of the Planning Council before Christmas to discuss "Strategy II". The meeting has had to be postponed but will be rearranged as soon as possible. This will give the Council an opportunity to make further representations about the problems of the region. Ministerial discussions with the North-West Council, and the Government's subsequent reply, will cover also the criteria for public investment.

Mr. Fleteher-Cooke: Was not that exactly the Answer given six weeks ago when this Question was put down? Why have there been no discussions, which were promised, meanwhile, particularly since the Minister's hon. Friend and my hon. Friends have pointed out earlier today that the North-West is seriously prejudiced concerning public expenditure, and has been ever since this Government have been in power?

Mr. Heffer: And long before.

Mr. Urwin: The hon. and learned Member referred to the Answer I gave six weeks ago. I am sure that he does not deliberately overlook the fact that I have already said arrangements had been made for a meeting before Christmas, but, because of circumstances beyond our control, we have not been able to have it. We will meet the North-West Planning Council as soon as possible after the Recess to discuss the whole of the implications and strategy.

Mr. Arthur Davidson: Does not my hon. Friend agree that there is now an overwhelming case for giving areas such as the North-West, North-East Lancashire in particular, the same sort of grant-aid to help to clear derelict sites—of which there is a disproportionate number, and has been throughout the time when hon. Members opposite were in government? Why do the development areas get 85 per cent., while we get considerably less?

Mr. Urwin: The questions posed by my hon. Friend are clearly tied up with the Hunt Committee, which will be reporting very soon to my right hon. Friend. I am sure my hon. Friend will not expect me to comment prematurely. Indeed, I do not know what might appear in the Hunt Report.

Mr. Tilney: Does the hon. Gentleman realise that he has not answered my Question, that there is great need for public expenditure on roads in the North-West, especially to our ports, and that for the public sector we receive about half the amount that is spent in Scotland?

Mr. Urwin: The hon. Member and his hon. Friends have to make up their minds whether they want the Government to reduce public expenditure or to expand it. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh!"] Oh yes. We are constantly subjected to this by the Opposition. I nevertheless appreciate the import and the intent of his Question. There is similar clamour from every region throughout the country on the question of roads and it is receiving attention according to merit.

Sir A. V. Harvey: The hon. Gentleman said that the meeting will take place after the Parliamentary Recess. Why could it not take place on 1st January? Why delay until we come back? Will the hon. Gentleman get it into his head that the North-West has had a raw time compared with the rest of the country, and that this is shown in all the by-election results and will continue?

Mr. Urwin: I do not accept the premise on which the hon. Member based his remarks. When I said "after the Recess", I meant after the Ministerial recess, not necessarily the Parliamentary Recess.

Mr. Ogden: Does my hon. Friend agree that the North-West has had more help from this Government in four years than it had from the Tory Government in 13 years? Will he bear in mind that the North-West is not only a region of great problems but one of great achievements and great potential?

Mr. Urwin: I accept the point made by my hon. Friend. What he has said is not singularly applicable to the North-West. Although great strides have been made in meeting a difficult situation in the region, this is applicable to every region in the country.

Regional Employment Premium

Mr. Hall-Davies: asked the Secretary of State for Economic Affairs what studies he has carried out into the employment generated by the payment of


regional employment premium as compared with the same payment applied to the improvement of the economic infrastructure; and in respect of which region studies have been made.

Mr. Urwin: It is difficult and to some extent misleading to make comparisons of this kind, but we are keeping the effectiveness of all regional measures under close review.

Mr. Hall-Davis: I trust that the Minister has answered the right Question. Surely his Department cannot expect to be taken seriously as an economic Department until it has made such studies and published the results?

Mr. Urwin: We are constantly studying the whole aspect of employment generated in this field. The hon. Member may be interested to know that there are quite a number of new jobs created as a result of the policies we have in train.

Mr. Tinn: Will my hon. Friend bear in mind that the regional employment premium has the great merit of encouraging development of labour-intensive industries in a development area whereas some of the other policies on machinery and so on tend to encourage capital-intensive industry?

Mr. Urwin: Yes. If my hon. Friend will look at the whole field of techno logical development he will see that there is an increasing tendency to increase capital intensive industries. On I.D.C. approvals related to this Question, applicants for the first nine months of this year estimate that the total additional employment to be created when projects are fully manned is almost 55,000 jobs, of which 38,000 are for males. In the comparable period last year the number was 41,000, of which 27,000 were for males. These figures refer only to jobs to which I.D.C. approvals apply.

Public Expenditure

Mr. Fortescue: asked the Secretary of State for Economic Affairs what check is kept on the allocation of expenditure by the public sector in the different regional planning areas in the light of their economic and social needs.

Mr. Urwin: For regional planning purposes work is concentrated on public expenditure on new construction in the regions. Apart from the continuous review of needs conducted by Government Departments, checks on allocation are provided by the representations from local authorities, who are the principal spending authorities in this field, and the comments of the regional planning councils who receive figures of past and forecast expenditure in this sector.

Mr. Fortescue: The Minister said this afternoon that he has studied it once, but will he study once more rather more carefully the table of new construction orders per head of the population for each of the planning regions in 1966–67? In those tables he will see that the North west area has been at the bottom for the last two years. If he has studied them and if he has an adequate check made on the figures, he will see that the North-West needs more than anyone else.

Mr. Urwin: I have already answered in part the question which the hon. Member asks. It is part of the normal duty of Government Departments to obtain the knowledge and information for which he is asking. They have all been very considerably assisted by the work of the regional economic planning councils in this regard.

Scottish Economy

Mr. Gordon Campbell: asked the Secretary of State for Economic Affairs if he will make a statement on the relationship between the White Paper on the Scottish Economy of 1966 and the revised national plan now being prepared.

Mr. Frederick Lee: The economic assessment for 1972, now under discussion in the N.E.D.C., applies to Great Britain as a whole and so has implications for Scotland. But, as the Secretary of State for Scotland has said on several occasions, the aims set out in the 1966 Scottish White Paper for improvements to the Scottish economy remain unchanged and efforts to achieve these aims are being fully maintained.

Mr. Campbell: As this Scottish White Paper was directly related to the National Plan, which was later abandoned, how


can it also be relevant to the new planning document?

Mr. Lee: I have already said that the new planning document takes into account the 1966 White Paper. There is no contradiction.

Mr. William Hamilton: Will my right hon. Friend give an assurance that the new National Plan will not deviate from the very successful regional development policies, because, if it did, and if it adopted the policies of the Leader of the Opposition, the whole of the North-East of Scotland, the whole of the South-West and the Borders would be excluded from those policies, with great ill-effect on the employment problem? Does not my right hon. Friend recognise that in 1964 the Scottish proportion of United Kingdom unemployment was 19·4 per cent and last year it was reduced to 13·3 per cent. because of Government policies?

Mr. Lee: I entirely agree with my hon. Friend. He will have noted, though apparently hon. Members opposite have not, that during the past four months that favourable trend has increased each month and that today's figures, even in December, are again showing improvements on the unemployment levels in September. This is the result of the Government's development area policies; and we propose to maintain them.

Department of Economic Affairs

Mr. Bruce-Gardyne: asked the Secretary of State for Economic Affairs what estimate he has made of the total cost to. public funds of his Department during the current calendar year; and how this figure compares with the corresponding figure for 1967, after allowing for changes in functions and responsibilities.

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: asked the Secretary of State for Economic Affairs what reductions he is now proposing to make in the numbers employed in his department; and what reduction this will produce in the estimates of his Department for the coming financial year.

Mr. Frederick Lee: The cost of the Department in the current calendar year is estimated at£1,340,000. The corresponding figure for 1967, adjusted to take account of the transfer of responsibility for prices and incomes policy to the De-

partment of Employment and Productivity, was£1,210,000. I do not foresee any further significant reduction in numbers or cost.

Mr. Bruce-Gardyne: What did the tax payers get for the£1·3 million spent last year? Would not any taxpayer listening to Ministerial replies this afternoon think that this money could be saved, to great advantage to the nation's economy?

Mr. Lee: Members of the public, after listening to the quality of the questions, might well reach the same conclusion. We believe that the Department has done an exemplary job.

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: In the light of an earlier Answer, is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the one form of saving in public expenditure which would result in universal applause would be the abolition of his Department and, to use their own jargon, would it not be better to redeploy them into activities helpful to exports?

Mr. Lee: I do not agree. To eliminate this great Department would be very short-sighted indeed. The economic planning which has gone on is a great advance on anything which went on before.

Humberside (Report)

Mr. James Johnson: asked the Secretary of State for Economic Affairs if he is now in a position to make a statement upon the report of the Humber Feasibility Study Unit with particular reference to the starting date of building the Humber Bridge.

Mr. Urwin: As explained in my answer to the hon. Member on 11th December last, the Government hope to publish the Humberside Report in three or four months' time. It would be inappropriate for me to comment on individual elements in the Report at this stage.

Mr. Johnson: Does not my hon. Friend appreciate that this added delay merely aggravates the feelings on Humberside of M.Ps., industrialists, and those in local government alike? Does not my hon. Friend accept that it is impossible to plan Humberside without joining the two banks of the Humber? In view of this, why do not the Government at least state that they will build a Humber bridge,


even if they do not give us at this moment a starting date?

Mr. Urwin: I know that my hon. Friend is deeply concerned, as are many of my Ion. Friends, not only about the report, but about the Humber bridge itself. I cannot add anything to what has already been said on the subject. Other planning work is still going on and can proceed even in advance of the presentation and consideration of the recommendations in this report.

British Standard Time

Mr. Gordon Campbell: asked the Secretary of State for Economic Affairs what further study he has made of the economic advantages of retaining British Standard Time through the winter; and if he will make a statement.

Mr. Brewis: asked the Secretary of State for Economic Affairs whether he will make an estimate of the loss or gain of production caused to date by the introduction of British Standard Time.

Mr. Body: asked the Secretary of State for Economic Affairs what inquiries are being made by his department to ascertain the effect upon industrial production of British Standard Time in the winter.

Mr. Alan Williams: A few months experience is an insufficient basis for assessing any effects which the introduction of British Standard Time may have had on industrial production. Although the Government placed little weight on the economic arguments when introducing this measure, such arguments will, of course, be covered in the comprehensive review in the spring of 1970.

Mr. Campbell: When will the Government recognise that they cannot stop the sun from rising earlier on President de Gaulle and points further east in Europe than it does in Britain and that we there fore have a worse problem of dark mornings than these other countries have?

Mr. Williams: At least the Government accepted the responsibilities of facing up to this issue. The Opposition did not even take a line on it. If they can not accept the responsibilities of opposition, they are not fit to accept the responsibilities of Government.

Mr. Ellis: What representations were received from those who were against the introduction of this Measure? In view of the interests North of the Border, what representations, from industry and other wise, against this Measure were received from North of the Border?

Mr. Williams: As was explained on Second Reading, there were wide consultations. North of the Border there was, in relation to population, a higher pro portion of consultations than took place South of the Border?

RHODESIA

Mr. Judd: asked the Prime Minister if he will publish the representations he has received from the Prime Minister of South Africa concerning the modifications of external guarantees as set out in the "Fearless" proposals; and what reply he has sent.

The Prime Minister (Mr. Harold Wilson): I have had no such representations, Sir.

Mr. Judd: Will my hon. Friend take this opportunity to scotch the rumours altogether that the Government are pre paring to make concessions beyond those offered in "Fearless"? Does he appreciate that he would have widespread respect and support in the House if, in the light of the intransigence of the regime, he felt that he should withdraw the "Fearless" proposals altogether?

The Prime Minister: In answer to the first part of my hon. Friend's supplementary question, we have made it clear that we have gone as far as we can in this matter and that we regard the "Fear less" proposals as reasonable and right and not subject to further extension. With regard to the second part of my hon. Friend's supplementary question, he will understand that the Government do not accept the advice he gives.

PRIME MINISTER (OVERSEAS VISITS)

Mr. Marten: asked the Prime Minister what overseas visits he is planning for the next 12 months.

The Prime Minister: On my visit to Bonn and West Berlin next February, I


would refer the hon. Gentleman to my reply to the hon. Member for South Angus (Mr. Bruce-Gardyne) on 10th Dec ember. Apart from this, I have at this stage no plans to announce for overseas visits later in the year.

Mr. Marten: As the Prime Minister now feels that there is a strong underlying improvement in our economy, would it not reinforce this feeling in the world if he went on an extended tour of the Commonwealth to meet the people there after the Commonwealth Prime Minister's Conference and particularly if on the way he called in at Gibraltar to show that Britain totally rejects the United Nations resolution?

The Prime Minister: With regard to the extremely serious point made by the hon. Gentleman at the end of his supplementary question, as he will know I was in Gibraltar only a few weeks ago. On that occasion I had the opportunity on Gibraltar television of telling the Gibraltarians:
We shall…stand four-square behind you and defend your rights to judge for yourselves where your interests and your own future should lie.
Nothing that has happened since then, including the vote last night, makes any difference to the attitude of, I am certain, all of us in the House.

Mr. Orme: When my right hon. Friend goes to Bonn next year, will he inform Herr Joseph Strauss that we can do without his strictures on the British trade union movement and will he remind him that the British trade union movement was a bulwark against Fascism in this country and has been of great help to Germany?

The Prime Minister: There seems to be some doubt about what in fact the Federal Finance Minister said last week, or indeed whether he made that speech at all. However, I am sure that if Herr Strauss reads, with his well-known interest in our affairs, HANSARD he will know at any rate what my hon. Friend thinks on this point.

Sir Alec Douglas-Home: Has the Prime Minister marked the contrast between the Government's attitude to wards sovereignty over Gibraltar and that over the Falkland Islands?

The Prime Minister: There has been no contrast at all. The right hon. Gentleman will, I am sure, applaud the words used on behalf of this country by Lord Caradon yesterday. The contrast which I noticed is that between what the right hon. Gentleman is saying now and what he said when I criticised his decision to offer frigates to Spain when the Spaniards were claiming Gibraltar.

Mr. Thorpe: For the avoidance of doubt, is the Prime Minister aware that there will be overwhelming support for the views expressed by Lord Caradon at the United Nations in regard to the Gibraltar matter and an overwhelming feeling of solidarity for the people of Gibraltar, who wish to remain British?

The Prime Minister: Yes. I was not in any doubt that that was the view of the right hon. Gentleman, of right hon. Gentlemen opposite, and of the whole House.

Mr. Emrys Hughes: When the Prime Minister is considering overseas visits will he consider visiting Japan, which has made enormous economic progress without anything like the defence expenditure that we have? If he goes to that district, will he also try to visit the island of Okinawa, which wants to get back to Japan and not be an American nuclear base?

The Prime Minister: It does not seem to be necessary for me to visit Japan, since that country has such a passionate apologist in the House in the shape of my hon. Friend.

Sir W. Bromley-Davenport: Could the right hon. Gentleman make any proposed visit of indefinite duration, so that every one would benefit, except his host?

The Prime Minister: The hon. and gallant Gentleman, who is rapidly showing how keen he is to compete with his hon. Friend the Membed for Yeovil (Mr. Peyton) in these subtle intellectual jokes, will know that I have this question regularly put to me, either by himself or some other hon. Gentleman, at about this time of year. Even so, it does not stop my wishing both hon. Gentlemen a very happy Christmas.

PRIME MINISTER (SPEECH)

Mr. A. Royle: asked the Prime Minister if he will place in the Library a copy of the public speech that he made to the Press Association in London on Tuesday, 26th November, 1968.

The Prime Minister: I did so, Sir, on 29th November.

Mr. Royle: But does the Prime Minister recall that in his speech he said that he would do everything possible to obtain the release of Anthony Grey, and since then all we have had, as usual from his Administration, has been words? [Interruption.]

Mr. Speaker: Order. We are on a very serious topic.

Mr. Royle: When will the Prime Minister take action to obtain the release of Mr. Grey from the barbarous imprisonment which he is undergoing in Peking?

The Prime Minister: This is a serious question as, if I may say so with respect, you pointed out, Mr. Speaker, too serious to be treated in the way in which the hon. Gentleman treated it in his supplementary question. The hon. Gentleman, I know, would not, on consideration, want to do or say anything which would make more difficult the task of securing the release of Mr. Grey from what he rightly describes as the intolerable conditions of his confinement.
Since the speech which was the subject of the Question, our chargé d'affaires has made further representations to the Chinese Government. I do not think that it would help if I went further into the matter today. All of us want to see Mr. Grey released. If the hon. Gentleman has any action in mind, as opposed to what we are doing, he will, no doubt, in view of the seriousness of the matter, stand up and tell us what it is.

PRIME MINISTER OF NORTHERN IRELAND (MEETING)

Mr. Rose: asked the Prime Minister when he is to have his next meeting with the Prime Minister of Northern Ireland.

The Prime Minister: I have nothing at present to add to what I said in reply to Questions from my hon. Friends the Members for West Lothian (Mr. Dalyell) and Bristol, North-East (Mr. Dobson) on 12th December.—[Vol. 775, c. 579–82.]

Mr. Rose: Is my right hon. Friend aware that the patient, firm and principled way in which he handled the meetings with Captain O'Neill has earned him the gratitude of all those who have been concerned about Northern Ireland? In the improved at mosphere following the courageous stand of Captain O'Neill, will my right hon. Friend continue to press equally as firmly for full implementation of equality in civil rights and electoral law in Northern Ireland?

The Prime Minister: It is a mark of what has happened over the past two or three weeks and of the tribute which I said last week I thought the whole House would wish to pay to the courage and firmness shown, that my hon. Friend, who has been very active in these matters, should associate himself with that tribute to Captain O'Neill.
As I made clear last week, we put a number of propositions to Captain O'Neill. He went a considerable way to meet them, but everything that has now happened only underlines the need for still more rapid progress, particularly in relation to the one subject which was not dealt with in his communications with me and his public announcements.

Sir D. Renton: Would it not be timely if the Prime Minister were to pay a wholehearted tribute to Captain O'Neill—[HON. MEMBERS: "He did."]—for the enlightened and progressive approach which he has shown to the problems of Northern Ireland?

The Prime Minister: I am sure that the right hon. and learned Gentleman recalls that I did just that a week ago, and I knew that I was speaking for the whole House. At that time, it was qualified by the concern I expressed on behalf of the House that in the difficult situation he was facing last Thursday, other views might be taken on the other side of the Irish Sea. On many occasions I have paid a strong tribute to Captain O'Neill, but I add to anything which I said


before the admiration of all of us for the response to what we put to him when he met the Home Secretary and myself a few weeks ago.

Mr. Chichester-Clark: Is the Prime Minister aware that the Northern Ireland Government are carrying out plenty of reforms of their own, and would it not be wise and timely if this House were now to leave them alone to get on with that which they are fully entitled to do without let or hindrance?

The Prime Minister: There is no doubt, as I have repeatedly emphasised to Captain O'Neill and to the House, that the reforms which have been called for are under the law and the convention within the jurisdiction of the Northern Ireland Government. But the hon. Gentleman must form his own view, as I know my hon. Friends will, about whether they would have moved so rapidly or whether they would have done what has been done but for the acute concern expressed in many quarters of this House about the fact that these things were not being done with the required speed until a few weeks ago.

PRICES AND INCOMES POLICY (WAGE INCREASES)

Mr. Ridley: asked the Prime Minister which Department is to answer Questions on the application of prices and incomes policy to wage increases.

The Prime Minister: Questions relating to increases in the public services and nationalised industries are normally answered by the Minister primarily responsible for the service or industry concerned, while those relating to agricultural pay are for my right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture. Other Questions should be addressed to my right hon. Friend the First Secretary of State.

Mr. Ridley: As the First Secretary of State is responsible for saying whether a pay increase is or is not within the terms of the prices and incomes policy, should she not, in effect, submit herself to questioning on all such increases which she has passed, for whatever industry they may be?

The Prime Minister: I understand the hon. Gentleman's concern here, and I

regret that, when he first tabled the Question, I was not quite clear about the problem which had arisen over the transfer of one of his Questions earlier to, I think, the Minister of Transport from the First Secretary of State.
In all these cases, what happens is that my right hon. Friend and the Minister in the responsible Department are in the closest touch; they usually meet the industry together, and there is full agreement and collective responsibility on the part of both Ministers. Clearly, when my right hon. Friend makes, or announces her intention to make, a standstill Order under the legislation, it would be right—as in the case of her statement yesterday—that she should answer questions about it. But in general I think that it will be for the greater convenience if the Minister responsible for the service or industry concerned answers the kind of Question which the hon. Gentleman has in mind.

Mr. Heffer: Will my right hon. Friend repudiate the rumours which are circulating in today's Press that agricultural workers' wages are likely to come under an Order, since we cannot do with any more so-called victories like the one we have had in relation to the building workers?

The Prime Minister: I know nothing about these rumours regarding agriculture. There is a wage claim being considered, but I am not aware of imminent action. I may be wrong; I am not responsible directly for that Department. As regards the building industry, I know well and understand my hon. Friend's feelings, but the matter was fully dealt with in a fairly long series of supplementary questions answered by my right hon. Friend yesterday.

Mr. Heath: The Prime Minister must be aware that there is now great public confusion as to what was agreed between industry and the trade unions at "Chequers" last weekend about the growth targets proposed by the Government? Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the best way of clearing this matter up would be for the Government to publish the document which was discussed at "Chequers "? As there have been such extensive leaks—

Mr. Ellis: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I ask for your advice, Sir. Is


this question in order? The matter which the Leader of the Opposition is now raising was fully dealt with during Questions to the Secretary of State for Economic Affairs earlier this afternoon. If the right hon. Gentleman had been here, he would have heard about it. Are we not now having valuable time consumed on a matter which was more appropriate for another Minister and which was dealt with today?

Mr. Speaker: That may be true, but the Chair gives the Leader of the Opposition some latitude.

Mr. Heath: I am not asking for any latitude, Mr. Speaker, since the Prime Minister has publicly announced that he is the Minister responsible for presiding over the N.E.D.C. and he was, there fore, responsible for last weekend's decisions.
My question to the Prime Minister is this. Should industry, the trade unions and the Government be parties to this discussion, and the House of Commons and the public have no opportunity to see the document or express views upon it?

The Prime Minister: I notice that the right hon. Gentleman takes a different view of the function of the N.E.D.C. from the one which he took when he was the Minister, but I shall be happy to answer his question nevertheless. The right hon. Gentleman referred to leaks. I am not aware of leaks from last weekend's discussions. I am aware that the Council meeting authorised the director-general of the N.E.D.C. to give information to the Press about the meeting and also gave him general instructions on what he should say. This was done, and as far as I know, it was reasonably and fairly understood and reported. The document to which the right hon. Gentleman refers is a planning document prepared for consultation with, first of all, the N.E.D.C. and then the "little Neddies". When it was presented to the N.E.D.C, we suggested that we first wanted to hear from the two sides of industry and the other N.E.D.C. members whether they felt that it was in the right form, had the right approach and was rightly balanced to form the basis of such consultations. We shall complete the consultations on 14th January at the next meeting of the N.E.D.C. We have

already put on the agenda the question whether it should then be published as an interim document ahead of consultations. In this we shall be guided by the views of industry about it.
I well understand the right hon. Gentleman's concern. We have said that, for our part, we should be prepared to see it published, but they may want to suggest Amendments to it, and we must listen to industry on the point.

Mr. William Hamilton: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. In reply to the point of order raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Bristol, North-West (Mr. Ellis), you said that you gave the Leader of the Opposition a certain amount of latitude. That we can understand, so long as it is understood by all of us that the latitude is related to the Question under discussion, and the right hon. Gentleman's question was wholly unrelated to Question No. Q5. If the right hon. Gentleman is to get that kind of latitude to ask a question completely unrelated to the one under discussion, we, as back-benchers, should have the same rights.

Mr. Speaker: Order. The Chair could not extend the same latitude. At Prime Minister's Question Time through history the Leader of the Opposition has had some latitude in the questions he puts to the Prime Minister.

Mr. Heath: Further to that point of order. I am prepared to take any latitude I am given. But on this question, the future of the prices and incomes policy must rely to a certain extent on the element of growth the Government believe will take place in the economy. Will the Prime Minister now say whether the official statement—

Hon. Members: That is not a point of order.

Mr. Speaker: Order. With respect to the right hon. Gentleman, we are on a point of order.

Mr. William Hamilton: Further to the point of order, the right hon. Gentleman has not even read the Question under discussion. It is not about the prices and incomes policy. It is about Ministers answering questions related to the policy, which is quite a different matter. I repeat that if Mr. Speaker—[Interruption.]

Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman is on quite a legitimate point of order.

Mr. Hamilton: In the interests of back benchers, we should get this point very clear. If the Leader of the Opposition is to have latitude, which means, on the interpretation we have just had, that he can ask a question completely unrelated to the one asked, back-benchers should have the same right. I ask for no more.

Mr. Speaker: There is a simple answer. The questions were not completely unrelated, though the amount of relation was probably a little narrower or a little scarcer than I would allow in the case of an hon. Member. But I must give both the Prime Minister and the Leader of the Opposition, in the inter change of questions, a certain amount of latitude. Both of them do not hesitate to take it.

Mr. John Hynd: Further to the point of order, the Leader of the Opposition has claimed that the prices and incomes policy largely depends on the operation of "Neddy" and the rest. Does that mean that, since the success of the policy depends, for instance, on our military expenditure, it is in order to ask supplementary questions on military expenditure on this Question?

Mr. Speaker: Order. I shall rule on the question as it comes.

Mr. Molloy: Further to the point of order, Mr. Speaker. Is the latitude you have extended to the Leader of the Opposition based on your chivalrous attitude to minorities in the House?

Mr. Speaker: Order. That is a most ingenious but most useless point of order.

Mr. Emrys Hughes: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. Are you aware that we do not object to giving the Leader of the Opposition latitude, but that he takes too much longitude?

Mr. Speaker: Order. That has been said before. I even said it on one occasion.

Mr. Whitaker: Reverting to the Question, is my right hon. Friend aware that it is very difficult to argue the social justice of rigid wage restraint on the poorest sections of the community when shareholders have been very unlucky

during the past 12 months if they have not increased the capital value of their holding by 33⅓ per cent.?

The Prime Minister: My hon. Friend is wrong to use the word "rigid" in that context. He will be aware from both his study of the White Paper published nearly a year ago and of the Bill which became law last summer that very special criteria are relevant in the case of lower-paid workers. He will also know the position as regards profits and dividends. Dividends are now subject to statutory control.

Mr. Heath: Further to the Question, which has been widened still further by the hon. Gentleman, will the Prime Minister now say definitely whether the trade unions accepted the growth target in the document put forward by the Government?

The Prime Minister: The problem is that the discussions are confidential until there is a statement and publication.

Hon. Members: Why?

The Prime Minister: That was the view taken by the former Government when "Neddy" was formed. We have been much more informative about actions taken under "Neddy". I well understand the concern of the right hon. Gentleman. That is why the Government will be happy to publish the document, with such amendments as industry requires. On the last occasion of a similar publication, the industry complained that it had not been consulted effectively before publication. We are now going through the consultation, and at the earliest possible moment I should like to see the document published. That deals with the point the right hon. Gentleman has in mind. I am trying to give as fair an account of what happened as I can. The position on the growth rate is that the Government have made it plain, and the trade unions have accepted, that the balance of payments must have priority over other considerations. I think that that will be accepted by the right hon. Gentleman. We have therefore postulated for planning purposes, subject to consultation, a lower growth rate for the next four years than, for example, the trade unions are talking about for the coming year. But we have said that this is not a rigid figure. To the extent that imports improve further—and they have improved


quite rapidly—a growth rate comparable to that which the trade unions are talking about should be possible, provided it was export-based and not based on home consumption, which would lead to inflation. I think that that is the fairest short answer I can give, but I recognise the desire of the House to have fuller information when the broad national consultations are completed in January.

IMPORT DEPOSITS (NON-STERLING LOANS)

Sir K. Joseph: Sir K. Joseph (by Private Notice) asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he will make a statement on the prohibition of non-sterling loans to importers for the payment of import deposits which has imposed on industry a sudden change in new arrangements authorised only two weeks ago.

The Financial Secretary to the Treasury

(Mr. Harold Lever): Under the Exchange Control Act, permission is required for United Kingdom residents to borrow foreign currency or external sterling. On the introduction of the import deposit scheme it was decided to allow such borrowing to assist importers to meet payment of import deposits in the early stages of the scheme.
The Government indicated then that the scale of borrowing would be kept under constant observation.
In the light of our experience since, it has been decided, in the interests of rein forcing the main intentions of the scheme, that permission will not in future normally be granted.

Sir K. Joseph: How much has been paid in deposit during the first fortnight? What proportion of import deposit do the Government think would have been financed from non-sterling credits but for the prohibition? Why has the Chancellor of the Exchequer changed his view since 22nd November that if credit is obtained from overseas this will improve our reserve position? Do the Chancellor and the Government realise the distraction of management effort caused by the order, itself a bolt out of the blue, and. within two weeks, counter-order?

Mr. Lever: It was made plain, on the Second Reading of the Act and in the

public information, that these arrangements would be kept under careful review

Sir Knox Cunningham: Two weeks later.

Mr. Lever: I shall not bandy dates with the hon. and learned Member for Antrim. South (Sir Knox Cunningham).
I made it plain that these applications would be kept under review and that each would be considered on merit. We have concluded, in the light of our experience and our assessment of the future position, that it is now desirable to review these facilities and that, normally, permissions of this kind will not be granted.
The right hon. Gentleman referred to extra management effort. I have already said that I am deeply sympathetic to those importers who have to meet this impediment, but any import restriction scheme of any kind would cause a great deal of extra administrative and management effort, and, as the right hon. Gentleman has recognised, this scheme is the one that causes least difficulty. I cannot at this stage give him the figures he desires.

Mr. Emery: Does the Financial Secretary realise that many firms and buyers have negotiated and renegotiated con tracts to meet the exact criteria stated by the Minister of State to the House, and that this sort of third-rate bucket shop alteration puts the Treasury in disrepute?

Mr. Lever: I would be better able to give a specific and useful answer to the hon. Gentleman if he would tell me the kind of renegotiations which would be affected by this change in the degree of liberality with which we grant these per missions. There was never any kind of assurance that this facility would be kept at the same level continuously. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] On the contrary, it was made plain, both in this House and to the Press and in the information generally made public, that the arrangements were provisional as they were announced to the House and would be kept under close review. That remains the position.

Mr. Barnett: As deposits can still be paid by foreign banks and foreign companies and the interest added to the cost


of the goods, what does my hon. Friend expect to achieve from the present Measure? Could he confirm reports that about 40 per cent. of deposits to date have been paid in foreign currencies?

Mr. Lever: I am not in a position use fully to give figures in answer to the latter part of my hon. Friend's supplementary question.
As far as the first part is concerned, we are aware that there will be several means of obtaining sources of finance from abroad as well as at home. It is not out present intention to interfere with those sources.

Sir Knox Cunningham: The Government cannot.

Mr. Lever: No doubt the hon. and learned Gentleman is authoritatitive on that matter.
All I can say is that this particular facility is to be reduced considerably. Instead of normally granting applications, we shall normally refuse them. Since the intention of the House was to sup port the scheme to allow an impact on domestic liquidity, it does not require a total stoppage of all facilities for finance from abroad. It merely means that those facilities are being somewhat narrowed.

Mr. Baker: Does the hon. Gentleman recall his Second Reading speech, when he said that importers would be able to adopt many methods for financing deposits, and that, by supporting the speech of the hon. Member for Heywood and Royton (Mr. Barnett), who specifically recommended this method, he gave his own blessing to it? What has happened during the last two weeks to make the hon. Gentleman change his mind?

Mr. Lever: I would always be ready to lay sacerdotal hands of blessing upon the speeches of my hon. Friend the Member for Heywood and Royton (Mr. Barnett) wherever possible, but, unhappily, he made his speech on that occasion after I had concluded my own observations, so I was not able to do so in this case.
There has been no change in the policy which was announced on Second Reading—that this Measure was to have a impact on domestic liquidity while recognising that some of the funds to enable importers to continue their imports would

come from abroad. I make it clear that it is in order for importers to finance their import deposits at home or to use such other facilities as may be available to finance them from abroad. I am merely tightening up one facility so as to enhance somewhat the domestic liquidity impact of the Act.

Mr. Blaker: Does not the hon. Gentleman think that this is likely to be another case of eating of words by the Government because of the inadequate preparation of the Bill and its hasty introduction?

Mr. Lever: If the only meal I had was words eaten in this particular instance, I would be starving. Not a single word has been eaten by the Government except those unceremoniously placed on their plate by the Opposition.

Mr. Mendelson: Is it not rapidly becoming clear that while one understands the Government's reluctance, and despite the unreasonable criticism levelled by right hon. and hon. Members opposite, the method chosen is the wrong one and that the only way to deal with the problem is to introduce selective physical import controls?

Mr. Lever: No, Sir. Selective controls of the kind my hon. Friend has in mind would cause considerably greater dislocation to perfectly legitimate import traders and might have other significant consequences of a kind none of us would wish to see. I re-emphasise that this is not a veto on imports, but imposes some pressure on the propensity to import and on liquidity sources in the United Kingdom.

Mr. Bessell: I want to revert to the question put by the hon. Member for Heywood and Royton (Mr. Barnett), who accurately assessed how this scheme will be overcome. Has the Treasury made any calculation of the increased costs of imports to consumers as a result of the interest charges mentioned by the hon. Member for Heywood and Royton?

Mr. Lever: I cannot give the hon. Gentleman those figures. It is clear that this and similar questions are inconsistent with the other criticisms. One cannot say, on the one hand, that the import deposit scheme imposes an intolerable burden upon importers to the point of disruption and bankruptcy, and then


on the other, that it is laughably easy to obtain money. It is neither one nor the other but a significant, marginal and useful pressure.

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: Will the hon. Gentleman now answer the question put by my right hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, North-East (Sir K. Joseph), why did the Chancellor of the Exchequer indicate originally that loans of this sort would be acceptable, because, in the short term, they would affect the balance of payments? Will the hon. Gentleman address his mind to the point that, where people have acted on a Ministerial statement of that sort, it is intolerable to alter the arrangements without any notice?

Mr. Lever: What I have said today in no way challenges what my right hon. Friend said. He made it plain that, to some extent, import deposits would be financed from abroad, and so they will. That will continue to be the case even in future. But one of the facilities has been tightened up.
As for putting people in the position of entering into engagements on the strength of our statements, on those loans already obtained interest will be payable. If arrangements have been made already for foreign exporters to make the deposits on behalf of the importer, the interest in future will be pay able on those loans which have already been made. No one will go back on a single word which has been uttered in this matter.

Mr. Peyton: Can the hon. Gentleman give any reference in HANSARD to any precise warning that he gave that this kind of action might be taken to make the arrangements more oppressive? Does not he realise that, when he referred to the fact that they would be kept under review, this was widely taken and no doubt intended to be taken, to mean that they would be reviewed sympathetically with a view to minimising the effects on trade. Now, he is making them worse.

Mr. Lever: That is the precise manner in which these arrangements have been kept under review. In the early stages of the scheme, when many importers had not yet found means for obtaining domestic finance, we wished to lighten their

burden deliberately by leaving as wide as possible the sources of finance. That has been done. Now that the domestic market has had time to organise itself so that importers have many alternative facilities at home as well as abroad for obtaining the money, it is thought fit to tighten up this particular facility.
The hon. Gentleman asked for the HANSARD reference of my warning. I will give it to him. It was during the Second Reading debate on 28th November last, and the reference is in c. 753. I said:
Exchange control is, of course, required for borrowing from non-sterling sources and it has been directed that applications for borrowing from non-sterling sources to finance import deposits must be submitted to the Bank of England. This will enable us not only to ensure that each application is considered on its merits"—
and there has never been open, general licensing for this facility—
but also to know how much business of this kind is done."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 28th November, 1968; Vol. 774; c. 753.]
I hope that the hon. Gentleman did not suppose that I indicated that I would watch the situation in order to do nothing about it one way or the other.

Mr. Speaker: Answers should be reasonably brief.

Mr. Crouch: May I draw the attention of the Financial Secretary to the fact that some countries are very dependent on their exports to this country? The country of which I am thinking is Malta. When I was there about 10 days ago, the Maltese Government, in con junction with the banks in Malta, were considering seeking to raise a loan to the tune of£1 million to support Maltese exports to this country.
Can he advise the House whether such an application from the Government of Malta and the banks in Malta would have the support of the Treasury in supporting the export trade to this country, on which the Maltese are absolutely dependent?

Mr. Lever: Loans will not normally be sanctioned, but, as hon. Members have pointed out, there are other facilities, as I am sure the Maltese Government are aware, which would enable them to some extent to mitigate any hardship which might be involved in the scheme.

Sir K. Joseph: As the Financial Secretary has now himself admitted that he has the figures of the volume of supplier credit authorised, will he please give them?

Mr. Lever: I assure the right hon. Gentleman that while these figures may be in existence, certainly I do not have them and have not been given them. I have kept under review the total programme. We in the Treasury have made some assessment of the prospective borrowing and we have concluded that at this point in time it is desirable to take the action which I have announced.
I am not able to give the right hon. Gentleman the figures, but if he will put down a specific Question I shall look into the matter.

COMMONWEALTH PRIME MINISTERS (MOTION)

Mr. Blenkinsop: On a point of order. Without implying any criticism of the authorities of the House who are responsible for the printing of the Order Paper, may I call your attention, Mr. Speaker, to a misprint in the Motion, which appears in my name and in the names of 86 other hon. Members, on the subject of the Commonwealth Prime Ministers' conference? In the last line but one there is printed the word "decline" which, of course, should be "declare".
As this is a major alteration of the meaning of the Motion, may I ask you to direct that, in view of the special circumstances, in its reprinting the Motion is reprinted with the full list of those sup porting it?

Mr. Speaker: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for raising this point of order so briefly and courteously. I will see that this request is met.
I have in my hand the holograph of the Motion—I might almost call it the palimpsest of the Motion. May I point out to hon. Members that it would help the Table and the printers, who work under great pressure, if manuscripts submitted to the Table were, if not in copper plate, at least fairly legible? If I had time to show hon. Members the manuscript in my hand, they would understand how it was possible to read "declare" as "decline".
I will see that the Motion is corrected and it will appear tomorrow with a full list of the signatories.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Mr. Heath: May I ask the Leader of the House whether he will state the business of the House for the first week after the Recess?

The Lord President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. Fred Peart): Yes, Sir. The business for the first week after the Christmas Adjournment will be as follows:
MONDAY, 20TH JANUARY—Debate on a Motion to consider the Fourth Report from the Select Committee on House of Commons (Services) in Session 1967–68, relating to Whitehall Redevelopment.
Motions relating to Privilege.
Motions on the District Probate Regis tries Order, and the Non-Contentious Probate (Amendment) Rules.
TUESDAY, 21ST JANUARY—Second Reading of the Education (Scotland) Bill.
Remaining stages of the Agriculture (Spring Traps) (Scotland) Bill and of the Mines and Quarries (Tips) Bill.
WEDNESDAY, 22ND JANUARY—Second reading of the Immigration Appeals Bill.
Remaining stages of the Foreign Compensation Bill.
THURSDAY, 23RD JANUARY—Second Reading of the Shipbuilding Industry Bill.
Remaining stages of the National Insurance&c, Bill.
FRIDAY, 24TH JANUARY—Private Member's Bills.

Mr. Winnick: Do the Motions relating to Privilege, to be debated on the Monday, include the Motion which the Leader of the House has tabled which removes the centuries-old tradition in connection with the Press?

[That, notwithstanding the Resolution of the House of 3rd March, 1762, and other such Resolutions, this House will not entertain any complaint of contempt of the House or breach of privilege in respect of the publication of the debates


or proceedings of the House, except when any such debates or proceedings shall have beer conducted with closed doors, or when such publication shall have been expressly prohibited by the House, or in case of wilful misrepresentation in relation to such publication.]

Mr. Peart: Yes, Sir.

Mrs. Kerr: Will the Leader of the House consider having a debate on Nigeria and Biafra very soon after we meet again in January?

Mr. Peart: I dealt with Biafra on Tuesday. We could not have such a debate in the first week after the Recess.

Several Hon. Members: rose—

Mr. Speaker: I remind the House that there is plenty of business ahead of us again today.

Mrs. Ewing: Is the Leader of the House able to make a statement on the composition of the Commission on the Constitution and the method of selecting its members? Is he able to say that the terms of reference will not preclude it from considering the option of Dominion status within the Commonwealth?

Mr. Peart: I think that there is a Question on this subject. I must look at it, but I do not want to go into details now.

Mr. Whitaker: Can my right hon. Friend say when he will announce any further Specialist Committees?

Mr. Peart: Yes. I am grateful to my hon. Friend for asking that question. I hope to table a Motion today. For the convenience of hon. Members, I may say that I hope to appoint a new Committee to look into Scottish affairs.

Sir D. Renton: If it is not possible to take the Second Reading of the Horse race Betting Levy Bill at a reasonable time tonight, when will it be taken?

Mr. Peart: Let us wait and see. I hope that we can get it tonight.

Mr. Jennings: The debate on the Report of the Services Committee appears to be on the narrow issue of the White hall building. Will it be possible to deal with other matters coming under the auspices of the Services Committee, affecting the welfare and amenities of the House?

Mr. Peart: That seems inevitable when discussing the possibility of new building. Hon. Members may use their own ingenuity within reason. It is for Mr. Speaker to decide, but I think that there will be opportunities.

Mr. William Hamilton: Will the Motion to set up a Scottish Select Committee, which, of course, will be welcome, be debateable?
Can my right hon. Friend say when the Second Reading of the House of Lords Bill will be and when the Bill will be published?

Mr. Peart: The Bill will be published tomorrow. Any Motion may be considered. I am glad that the appointment of this Committee for Scotland has been welcomed.

Mr. Baker: Will the Leader of the House consider having a debate early in the new year on invisible earnings? We have not yet had an opportunity to discuss invisible earnings and the Report of the Bland Committee, although the other place has?

Mr. Peart: I recognise that this is an important matter, but I cannot find time during the period I have mentioned.

Mr. Blenkinsop: Will my right hon. Friend give an assurance that at the earliest possible moment after the House resumes we shall have a debate on what transpires from the Commonwealth Prime Ministers' conference, with particular reference to the subject of Rhodesia and my Motion?

[That this Houses welcomes the Commonwealth Prime Ministers to the forthcoming Conference in London and reiterates its belief that, because of the fundamental human rights at stake in Rhodesia and their significance for race relations throughout the world, the Commonwealth leaders should again declare their commitment to the principle of Nibmar.]

Mr. Peart: It is obviously important to have the Commonwealth Prime Ministers' conference in London. I am sure that the House will be kept in formed, but I cannot say at this stage that there will be a debate on this specific subject.

Mr. Bruce-Gardyne: The Leader of the House will be aware that the Secretary of State for Scotland has now told local authorities in Scotland to take action which could lead to the with drawing of schooling from thousands of children during the Christmas Recess. Will he therefore ask his right hon. Friend to make a statement in the House tomorrow to tell local authorities what they are to do in this situation?

Mr. Peart: My right hon. Friend dealt with this fully the other day.

Mr. Arthur Lewis: Further to the point raised by the right hon. and learned Member for Huntingdonshire (Sir D. Renton). As the Horserace Betting Levy Bill is the fifth Order today and is very unlikely to be reached at a reasonable hour, it being only a question of subsidies for the horse-racing fraternity, those who own racehorses, no one is really interested. I believe that it is a conspiracy between the "Wigg" and the Tories—

Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Member must not drift into the merits of the Bill which we are to debate.

Mr. Lewis: I was not going into the merits. I just mention that it is a conspiracy between the "Wigg" and the Tories. There is no merit in that. Could not this matter be brought on the first week when we come back? Why hurry it? No one wants it, except the race horse-owning people.

Mr. Peart: I hope that my hon. Friend will not cast any aspersions on how this was put on the Order Paper. It is an important matter. After all, the horse-racing community, the betting fraternity, is an important section of the community. We must bear this problem in mind. Let us see how we get on.

Mr. Kenneth Lewis: Is the Leader of the House aware that a Bill is coming up after the Christmas Recess with pro posals in it to turn the County of Rutland into a towpath round a lake, because a massive reservoir is to be built? Will the right hon. Gentleman ensure that there is plenty of time to discuss the matter? Will he support it and get his right hon. and hon. Friends to support it, too, because I want to make sure that I am not the first Member of Parliament

to be washed out. We want to keep this reservoir out of Rutland.

Mr. Speaker: Order. We cannot drift into the merits, even of Rutland.

Mr. Peart: I know the hon. Gentleman's interest in his constituency. I will convey the hon. Gentleman's views to my right hon. Friend.

Mr. Eadie: Further to the point raised by the hon. Member for South Angus (Mr. Bruce-Gardyne). Is the Leader of the House aware that the Opposition could have had an opportunity to get rid of their synthetic indignation about the General Teaching Council in Scotland if they had tabled a Question this week?

Mr. Peart: I am aware of this. I dealt with this matter specifically on Tuesday.

Mr. Gordon Campbell: On the proposal for a Selective Committee on Scottish Affairs, which the right hon. Gentleman has just announced, may I ask whether he can say when it will come before the House and be considered?

Mr. Peart: It will be tabled and we will have an opportunity to discuss it when we come back.

Mr. Orme: Can the Leader of the House give an assurance that no Orders relating to Prices and Incomes policy will be laid by the Minister during the Recess against the agricultural workers or the tally clerks in London docks? Secondly, did my right hon. Friend say when the Second Reading of the Lords Bill would be taken?

Mr. Speaker: Order. One business question at once. I think that either would do.

Mr. Peart: I said that the House of Lords Bill would be published tomorrow. I did not mention anything about a debate on Second Reading. It is not for me to go into details about Orders outside.

Mr. Judd: Has my right hon. Friend in mind the appointment of any other Specialist Committees than the one on Scottish affairs which he mentioned?

Mr. Peart: This is a new one. I hope that what we have done will be appreciated. It is an important experiment. I am always considering the possibilities of other reforms.

BILL PRESENTED

PARLIAMENT (NO. 2)

Bill to amend the law relating to the composition and powers of the House of Lords; to make related provision as to the parliamentary franchise and qualification; and for purposes connected there with, presented by Mr. James Callaghan; supported by the Prime Minister, Mr. Richard Crossman, Mr. Fred Peart, Mr. William Ross, Mr. George Thomas, and the Attorney-General; read the First time; to be read a Second time Tomorrow, and to be printed. [Bill 62.]

Orders of the Day — NATIONAL INSURANCE &c. BILL

Order for Second Reading read.

4.5 p.m.

The Minister of State, Department of Health and Social Security (Mr. Stephen Swingler): I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time.
This is a short Bill which has two limited but beneficial purposes. The first purpose is to continue the payment of flat rate unemployment benefit to suspended workers during the first week of suspension after 9th March 1969 when, under present statutes, it would other wise cease.
The second purpose is to pave the way for regulations to implement the recommendation of the National Insurance Advisory Committee that benefits should remain encashable for 12 months instead of six months as at present.
These are two quite separate issues with which I will deal separately.
Clause 1 follows from the Government's decision, announced by my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Employment and Productivity on 14th October, to give more time for negotiations with both sides of industry about pro posals for legislation requiring employers to make guarantee payments to workers on short time or laid off for a week or less. At present, such workers are en titled to flat rate unemployment benefit subject to the normal rules. But this entitlement is due to end, under section 3 (1) of the National Insurance Act, 1966, on 9th March next year. The first purpose of the Bill is to enable the payment of this flat rate unemployment benefit to continue for the time being beyond next March.
Section 3 of the 1966 Act reflects the principle that responsibility for short periods of suspension should rest with employers. The Government remain of the view that that principle is right.
Unemployment benefit is primarily in tended to provide for the wholly unemployed, not to provide extra income in addition to earnings for workers laid off by their employers for brief spells or


on regular short time. The then Minister, my right hon Friend the Member for Lanarkshire, North (Miss Herbison), on Second Reading of the 1966 Act, said:
It does not seem sense economically, nor is it right socially, that the contributions of the general mass of workers—many of whom earn less full time than others are getting when they are employed part-time or on short time—should be used in this way to subsidise earnings in certain industries. I think that any reasonable person would accept that view. With earnings-related benefits, especially, it would be quite wrong to pay benefit for part of the week to people who still have a job and have earnings during the rest of the week."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 7th February 1966; Vol. 724, c. 43.]
Accordingly, the 1966 Act, which introduced earnings-related supplement to unemployment benefit, provided that that supplement should never be paid during short time or lay-off for less than a week, and this provision is unaffected by the Bill. The Act further provided, as a permanent long-term measure, that flat rate unemployment benefit should also be withdrawn for these periods.
But it was recognised at that time that industry would need time to negotiate voluntary agreements to deal with short-time working in the industrial context. Three years, therefore, were allowed for these agreements by the 1966 Act—namely, until March, 1969. At that time Her Majesty's Government under took that, if voluntary agreements were not made, a statutory scheme of guarantee payments would be introduced.
My right hon. Friend the First Secretary of State and her Department have borne the responsibility, first, for stimulating voluntary agreements where they do not now exist and, subsequently, when it was made clear at the end of last year that voluntary agreements would not be reached, for initiating negotiations with both sides of industry for the introduction of a statutory scheme. Negotiations revealed substantial problems requiring further study—notably about the form and level of guarantee and provisions to be made for workers suspended because of strikes.
It was also necessary to take account of other related developments, as the House will be aware, especially the pro posals arising from the Report of the Donovan Commission and the plans for the Government's new social security

scheme, on both of which White Papers will be published shortly.
Clause 1 will enable the payment of unemployment benefit to continue mean while beyond March of next year until a day to be appointed by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State, and the commencement Order will be subject to the affirmative Resolution.
I turn to the second purpose of the Bill, which stems from a report of the National Insurance Advisory Committee. This Report, as many hon. Members will be aware, dealt with late claims as well as with the subject of not cashing drafts in time, and fresh legislation is required only for the encashment part of the recommendation. Hon. Members will be aware that the other aspects of it can be dealt with by regulations, to come into effect at the same time as the Bill itself.
Complete uniformity on claims is neither possible nor desirable. There are at present two types of the time limit on claims, an initial time limit, and an outer time limit. The initial time limit varies with the benefit, normally six days for sickness benefit, and three months for long-term benefits. But it can be extended if the adjudicating authorities accept that there is good cause for making late claims.
There is at present an outer limit—the second kind of limit—of six months, and on the recommendation of the N.I.A.C. we are proposing that that six months' outer limit should be ex tended to 12 months. There are good reasons for having these differences, in many cases to give an amount of flexibility, but it is, nevertheless, sensible that there should be a common time limit in all the scheme for encashment, and that is what is provided for by Clause 2.
Clause 2 enables us to make regulations to make 12 months, instead of six, as the outer time limit in the case of the Industrial Injuries, National Insurance, Supplementary Benefit, and Family Allowances Schemes, right across the board. Nevertheless, further extension will still be possible in special cases for those who, somehow, are unable to fulfil this principle.
The N.I.A.C. considered the argument that once a benefit had been awarded there should be no time limit at all on cashing the benefit, but the Committee pointed out to us that the cost factor


here is important. If someone turned up after five years and tried to cash a postal draft, the Department would need to check that it had not been replaced in the meantime following an allegation of its loss, and the storing and searching through hundreds of millions—and it would be that number—of cashed orders and drafts would be an extensive business, for which other contributors would have to pay. Most benefit payments are conditional. The beneficiary has to sign that he is entitled to them, and there is no value in the declaration of entitlement in respect of a period so long ago that the beneficiary has forgotten all about the circumstances of the time.
The great majority of people cash benefits or pay them into a bank very shortly after getting them. For example, 99 per cent. of the postal drafts for sickness benefit are cashed within a month. But there is a minority who do not, and they include a wide range of people—the sick, the forgetful, and, of course, the careless. We are here making a generous provision by accepting the recommendation to extend the encashment period to 12 months, and a special extension beyond this will be allowed for to help in the tiny number of special cases which often attract considerable sympathy from hon. Members. I hope that this will be considered a reasonable provision.
Clause 3 embodies a customary provision of National Insurance legislation as regards regulations. As to unemployment benefit, it is intended to cover certain complicated and technical rules about the payment of unemployment benefit for days when a person would not normally be working. These regulations already exist, and are simply to remain in being. In regard to time limits, it covers regulations implementing all changes recommended by the N.I.A.C, which are to be brought into effect at the same time as the Bill becomes law.

Mr. Marcus Worsley: Will the hon. Gentleman explain a little more fully what he said about the regulations with regard to unemployment benefit? Does he mean that there is to be no change? If that is so, why do they have to be reissued?

Mr. Swingler: They are simply to continue. There are regulations in regard to the five-day week, and so on. The hon. Gentleman is right in saying that there is

to be no change, but these have to be related to the regulations which are issued under the Bill with regard to encashment and other provisions.
On the question of cost, the continued payment of unemployment benefit will cost about£3 million per annum, and the equivalent of about 300 members of the staff in the Department of my right hon. Friend the First Secretary of State will continue to be required for this work.
I commend the Bill to the House. As I said at the beginning, it is a simple Measure, modest but beneficial in its effects. On the one hand, it implements recommendations made to us by the N.I.A.C, and, on the other, it continues the payment of flat-rate unemployment benefit until we have negotiated a means of making the substitution for which pro vision was made in the 1966 Act.

4.17 p.m.

Mr. Marcus Worsley: The Minister called this a modest Bill. I do not think that anybody will dispute that. I think we might say, too, that it is a typical production of this Government. It is bitty, ill-thought out, and has been brought forward in haste. What a name it starts with—" National Insurance &c." The hon. Gentleman did not explain what "&c." was. What is there in the Bill which is not National Insurance? Why" &c"? What an undignified way of describing an Act of Parliament. This is all part of the Walter Mitty approach to politics by the Government. In their day dreams they are a great reforming Government, full of marvellous new plans and promises. In real life they struggle from one muddle to the next, and this is another example of that.
We are being asked to postpone, per haps indefinitely, the transfer of unemployment benefit for short-time working from the National Insurance Fund to the employer. This is typical of the sort of legislation being brought forward during this Parliament. Perhaps I might remind the House of one or two other examples of this sort of thing. Prescription charges were abolished, and then reintroduced a few years later. It was then decided to give free school meals for all fourth children in a family, irrespective of the wealth of the family, but the present Secretary of State for Education and Science soon put paid to that. Then, only this year the proposal to transfer payment for the first


three days of sickness from the Insurance Fund to the employer was introduced into a Bill, without consultation, and then dropped in Committee.
Each time we find the same pattern adopted by this Government of planners. A bright idea is suddenly taken up, some times for straight electoral reasons, some times because it sounds attractive. It is rushed into legislation, without careful thought, without consultation, and without the implications being realised, and the Bill is a perfect example of that.

Mr. John Ellis: indicated dissent.

Mr. Worsley: It is no good the hon. Gentleman leaning back and shaking his head, because those are clear examples of the Government, apparently in good faith, taking decisions which no Government would take without proper thought, and then having to come back to the House either years or weeks later and reversing their decisions. This is not the way in which the country should be governed. Our people feel this more and more.
The Government observed what any body who knows anything about industry could hardly fail to notice, namely, that the present system of paying unemployment benefits for short-time working is sometimes abused. I have often been amazed and confused by the complexity of the case law which has grown up round this subject. It is almost a form of folklore—a happy hunting ground for every barrack-room lawyer.
I hope that the Minister who winds up the debate will make clearer what his hon. Friend said about the regulations. As I understood him, he said that there would be no change. On the other hand, he included these regulations in Clause 3, therefore indicating that it was necessary to reissue them. I cannot understand that. If they are continuing, I can not see why they need to be reissued. Perhaps this minor point could be cleared up.
When the Government observed that there was abuse in this matter how did they react? Did they consider the rules that they intend to reissue without change? Did they seek to simplify them? Did they send them to the Advisory Com-

mittee to see if they could be improved, so that abuse could be avoided? Did they even consider them carefully? Not this Government. How did they react? Simply and characteristically, they put the burden on industry.
They tried yet again in the 1966 Act to add to the already heavy weight of costs on industry—the heavy weight to which they have added enormously since. To Corporation Tax, redundancy payments, S.E.T., and dearer National Insurance stamps—all part of the easy and, from their point of view, seductive process of putting costs on industry; that is one reason why we are in our present economic mess—they tried to add unemployment benefit for short-time working. In stead of doing that they should have sought, by every means, to encourage industry.
Once again, they first announced the decision and then had consultations to see if the thing was possible. Typically, also, these consultations or discussions were under threat, the threat being that if there was no agreement within 18 months legislation would be introduced. The Minister said that his right hon. Friend had stimulated voluntary agreements of this kind. I hope that he can support that assertion. My information is to the opposite effect—that far from stimulating voluntary agreements of this kind, the natural attitude of the unions when told that the Government intended to legislate 18 months later was to stick out for far higher terms than they could otherwise reasonably have expected. Far from stimulating voluntary agreements, the effect of this threat was to slow them up.
During the period of 18 months there was an extension of voluntary agreements. I would have thought that it was hardly sensible to try to encourage voluntary agreements by putting forward a threat that if such agreements were not forthcoming negotiations would follow. When the negotiations started they revealed what should have been obvious from the start, namely, that voluntary agreements could not cover the whole of industry, for the simple reason that much of industry is not organised. I cannot believe that if the Government had considered this matter carefully they could have thought that a comprehensive system of voluntary agreements should be arrived


at right across the board to meet this point.
I want to make two points about the general proposition of the transfer. First, no transfer of additional burdens to industry would be acceptable to us except in the context of the general climate of greater incentives to industry, and decreased burdens upon industry. It can not be right to add yet again to the burden which the Government have laid upon industry.
Ssecondly, I seriously wonder whether it is possible, even through legislation, to work out an equitable scheme in this way. I am certain that it is not possible to cover the whole of employment through voluntary agreements. Is it even possible through a compulsory scheme? I have my doubts, because, ignoring for the moment the graduated element, the benefits that the Bill continues—the National Insurance benefits for unemployment—are based primarily on family need.
As far as I can see it, benefits from employers are bound to be based on wages paid. All the propositions that have became public in this matter have referred to a certain proportion of wages. We saw recently that the Ford Motor Company would put forward the figure of two-thirds. When we consider the difference between these two principles we run into enormous difficulty. If we pitch the payment low the man with a large family tends to get too little, whereas if we pitch it high the man with the large wage and small commitments may get too much.
Nobody would wish to have a system which gave any sort of incentive to continued short-time working, whether the matter was viewed from the employer's or the employee's point of view. It is very difficult to establish an equitable system which both provides for social need and avoids the disincentive effect. I hope that the Minister will be able to say something about this.
Finally, there is the extremely difficult problem of the effect of this proposal on strikes. At present, most voluntary mini mum wage agreements exclude short-time working caused by strikes, even when they are outside the plant or industry concerned. The National Insurance Scheme is considerably more lax, although here, once more, a complex of case law—I

almost called it folklore again—which governs these matters. The Donovan Report recommended a further relaxation in that respect.
The difficulty is that if we put the burden for this payment on employers we also put upon them the task of assessing who should or should not receive benefit in the event of strikes. This is a real difficulty, and I hope that the hon. Member will be able to say something about it. It is one thing to put on the Insurance Fund, by regulation, the assessment of liability in this matter; it is much more difficult when the task is put upon employers.
Furthermore, it would be easy to devise a scheme which gave a real incentive to the unofficial striker. If we substantially increase benefits in this way—and all the propositions put forward have involved a considerable increase—by so much do we encourage unofficial strikes, unless the rules are fairly strict. The C.B.I. has expressed extreme concern lest a scheme of this sort should actively encourage unofficial strikes.
There are, as the Minister admitted, considerable difficulties involved in all of this. I do not know whether they can be overcome, but certainly they can be considered only in the light of everything that comes from the Donovan Report and everything that will be in the White Paper which will, I suppose, appear.
On Clause 2, I am sure that the Government have done well to accept the Report of the Advisory Committee. We support their decision. The Committee made an unanswerable case for having a limit in so vast a scheme. If the Minister has not already received a great many constituency cases concerning this matter, he soon will. He will find that the question of limits often arises. The temptation to abolish limits must be great for any Minister, but with a scheme which involves 11 million claims a year for sickness benefit, 2½ million for unemployment benefit and half a million for retirement pension, then, if the scheme is not to get out of control, there must be limits.
The Minister was right to make it clear that for the huge majority of cases this change will have no consequence. In other words, for the great majority of cases the effective limit has not been in creased from six months to a year, but


is either the three months he mentioned for long-term benefit or a much shorter period for sickness or unemployment. I hope that this debate will not give any one the idea that he can be more lax than now about applying for benefit. For all practical purposes, the limits are exactly what they have been. This is only a long stop device, and I hope that the Government will make this absolutely clear in any literature that they put out.
I said that constituency cases play a large part in our consideration of these matters. I therefore do not apologise for raising a constituency case. Is the provision in the Bill about putting the limit up from six months to a year to be retrospective? Would the constituency case which I intend to quote be covered by this legislation? If not, will the Government consider it? I refer to the case of a woman who was long separated from her husband, but not divorced. She completely lost contact with her husband, to the extent that she did not learn for seven years of his death. I do not remember the exact date, but she was over 50 at that time and, from the moment of his death, she became entitled to the widows' pension. She did not know this until, by accident—I think that it was due to the fact that she reached 60—she discovered that her husband was dead.
She naturally felt—and I sympathise with her in this—that during this time she should have obtained the widows' benefit. If she had claimed it she would have got it, but because of the operation of the rule she was not entitled to any back pay beyond the six months. Would this woman now be entitled to an additional six months benefit? In other words, is the Bill retrospective? Should not a case of this kind be treated as being outside the one year limit and be treated separately?
In its Report, the Advisory Committee dealt in paragraph 25 with the general question of people who, because of mental incapacity, were incapable of making a claim. Its recommendation went wider and said:
… where the adjudicating authorities are satisfied that a person has throughout a given period been incapable of obtaining payment of an award, that period should be ignored in

calculating the year during which payment of an award must be obtained.
I would have thought that the wording of that recommendation—although I admit that it is not supported by the wording of the Report generally—included the sort of case I have cited.
I ask the Minister to bear this point in mind and to see whether, in cases where a beneficiary could not—because of some ignorance or inability to obtain vital in formation relative to a claim—make a claim, the type of procedure recommended for mental incapacity should apply.
I do not apologise for raising a constituency case because the provisions of the Bill are bound to end up as constituency cases in the Minister's tray. I suggest that we should give the Bill a Second Reading, while hoping that, when replying to the debate, the Minister will answer the questions we have asked.

4.36 p.m.

Mr. Douglas Houghton: I had not intended to intervene in the debate until I heard the hon. Member for Chelsea (Mr. Worsley) try to launch a political attack on the Government on the slender foundations of the Bill. I respectfully suggest to him that it is too near Christmas and that he does not have the necessary streak of malice or aggression to mount such a political attack at this time on this subject.
The Bill is necessary because of the abortive attempts of the Government to get an arrangement with employers about their obligations towards workers who are suspended. I had a good deal to do with the provisions of the 1966 Act. At that time we embarked on a reform of unemployment and related benefits after the first 12 days This was a most expensive change in National Insurance benefits. To do it for unemployment benefit, we found that we had to do it for sickness benefit, which was far more expensive.
At one stage we considered whether we could make a change for unemployment and not for sickness. What we were doing then was an act of economic rather than of social policy. We were trying to make it more possible for a man to change his job without serious loss of financial resources by the redundancy payments and earnings related unemployment benefit.
That was approved and welcomed by the House. We did not introduce earnings related benefit for very short periods of sickness and unemployment for obvious reasons; the administrative problems and the fact that many workers would be unlikely to get their benefit before they returned to work because of the need to check the assessment of their earnings related benefit, and so on. The earnings related benefit scheme was introduced to general approval and I believe that it has worked quite well.
The particular problem which is the subject of the Bill was what to do with workers who are not unemployed in the strict sense of the term for a few days, a fortnight, or some other period, but are, as the Bill says, suspended. The hon. Member for Chelsea said that it would be unacceptable to his hon. and right hon. Friends if the Government tried to push further obligations and burdens on industry. The fact is that we were trying to stop industry from pushing burdens on to the National Insurance Fund, because these men were not discharged, they were not given their cards, they were not looking for other jobs; they were put off in conditions which in my constituency of Yorkshire are described as "playing"—that is to say, they are suspended from work, but they are not discharged. Their employers still have a tag on them. They may want them back in a fortnight, and frequently do want them back.
An employer may be short of orders, or there may be some other reason why, for a short period, he does not want to continue to pay the wages of his work force, and he wants the unemployment benefit to take the place of wages in those circumstances. It frequently happened that workers had to go to the Ministry of Labour to sign on for unemployment benefit when, strictly speaking, they were not unemployed and, strictly speaking, they were certainly not looking for other jobs. One of the first conditions of unemployment benefit is that a man or woman shall be available for other employment and that if the employment officer says, "I have a job for which you may be suitable", the man or woman shall go in search of it. But that did not happen and does not happen when workers are suspended.
We therefore said in 1966, "This short-term suspension period, during which employers are hiving off their obligations on to the National Insurance Fund, ought to be reviewed, and we will try to get a different arrangement". The then Minister of Pensions and National Insurance put into the Bill a proviso that three years from introduction of the 1966 Act payment of unemployment benefit for the first six days of suspension—not unemployment—should not be made. It was hoped that during three years an arrangement would be reached with employers which would relieve the National Insurance Fund of this obligation in these circumstances.
That effort has failed. Three years seemed long enough to achieve that object, but the three years expire in March, 1969 and the Bill has to anticipate the unlikelihood of an agreement being reached before March. Provision must be made to put the termination of the three years period into abeyance, and that is what the earlier part of the Bill seeks to do. This is a temporary post ponement. I hope, of the period during which we hope that employers will come to some sensible arrangement about conditions of this kind.
Surely that does not constitute a ground on which the hon. Member for Chelsea can say, "This is just like the Labour Government. They can do nothing properly. It is all bits and pieces. What an incompetent lot they are". That is what he said. On this Bill? Surely the hon. Member must recover his sense of proportion.
This Bill is merely safeguarding workers against the termination of unemployment benefit for the first six days of suspension for which provision was made in the 1966 Act—and the safeguard is made necessary because we have been unable to make other arrangements to take the place of unemployment benefit. Of course, the workers would much prefer to be paid than to be driven to apply for the flat-rate unemployment benefit. Their interests lie in getting a better arrangement than we have at present.
I am disappointed in the hon. Member for Chelsea. I thought that he would say that this was obviously a desirable Bill in the circumstances and that the Government were wise to anticipate the


need for action, and then wish us all a Happy Christmas, as did his right hon. and learned Friend the Member for St. Marylebone (Mr. Hogg) yesterday. We could then conclude the Bill in a spirit of amity and harmony. Instead of that, we have the hon. Member trying to pick a quarrel with the Minister, with me sitting here knowing much more about the whole matter than he does.

Lord Balniel: Lord Balniel (Hertford) rose —

Mr. Houghton: I will not give way at the moment. The Christmas spirit has not yet come over me.
I am still refuting the hon. Member for Chelsea, because I think he deserves it. The noble Lord is not in it at the moment. He has not spoken a word. Later, he will no doubt say what he wishes to say, but at the moment I am dealing with his hon. Friend—and I hope I have disposed of him.
In the rest of the Bill there are provisions which clearly can be put in a Bill being introduced at this time, particularly the provisions in Clause 2, which were the subject of consideration by the National Insurance Advisory Committee. When that Committee makes recommendations on matters of this kind, the Government naturally take the first opportunity of incorporating the recommendations into a Bill. This is what they have done—and full marks for them so far.
There are other questions which might be dealt with in the Bill—for instance, the length of retrospection in the award of benefit not previously claimed. But that is not in the Bill. We shall have to deal with such matters later when we come to the much bigger questions relating to social security in the future.
I see nothing wrong with the Bill. It is a desirable and an essential Bill. It takes time by the forelock so that we are not in a mess when March arrives—otherwise, the provisions of the 1966 Act will come into operation. I commend my right hon. Friends for what they have done. Recently, I have been rather critical of the Government on one or two matters, but I commend them for having brought in the Bill. I had hoped to sit here placid, happy and comfortable and to watch events unfold in respect of which I had something to do in 1966,

instead of which I have been provoked by the unnecessary and unjustifiable attack on the Government by the hon. Member for Chelsea.

4.48 p.m.

Mr. Tim Fortescue: I will not attempt to follow the eloquence, the passion and the fire of the right hon. Member for Sowerby (Mr. Houghton), except, of course, to wish him a Happy Christmas. I hope that he enjoys his Christmas as much as he enjoyed making that speech.
In defence of my hon. Friend the Member for Chelsea (Mr. Worsley), I would point out that he was attacking the Government not for the Bill, but for doing something entirely different from that which they said they would do during the Second Reading debate on the previous Bill. Previously, the Government said that if a negotiated agreement was not possible within three years, legislation would be introduced to make such an arrangement compulsory. In fact, they have done something entirely different. Their promise has not been kept. My hon. Friend was not attacking the Government for the reason which the right hon. Gentleman gave. He was attacking them on quite a different matter.

Mr. Houghton: The hon. Member for Chelsea said that if any such proposal had been made the Opposition would have opposed it.

Mr. Fortescue: The proposal has not been made. Having promised on Second Reading of the previous Bill that they would bring in legislation to make these arrangements compulsory, the Government have not done so. This is a subject for attack, and this is what we are attacking.
My remarks will be directed to two quite different points. The first relates to Clause 2, the time limit Clause, which has been generally welcomed. I should like to consider it a little more critically than perhaps it has been considered so far.
It is of interest that no time limit was laid down in the National Insurance Act or the Ministry of Social Security Act, 1966. The time limit of six months to which so much reference has been made


today was imposed in regulations made under the two Acts. But now the Government seek, for reasons which have not been made clear, to enshrine the not less than 12 months stipulation in an amending Act. They propose to amend the original Acts rather than the regulations.
I should like to know why this course is being adopted. It would have been possible to amend the regulations simply by changing six months to 12 months. That would have been completely in tune with what was done originally. I should be grateful for an explanation for this change of attitude. Why make this part of legislation rather than part of regulations under the Acts?
Should not a different approach be made to time limits under the National Insurance Acts from the approach made under the Ministry of Social Security Act? Payments made under the National Insurance Act are payments of right which citizens have earned through their contributions to the National Insurance Scheme. They are entitled to them. Therefore, in strict theory, one could say that there should be no time limit and that whenever a person wants to claim benefits he should be able to get them.
However, the National Advisory Committee and the Minister of State have explained cogently why that would not be practical, and I entirely agree with them. But it is practical for the Inland Revenue to demand payment from the citizen for six years after that payment is due, and no one seems to think that that is impossible. No one has told me that that is a wrong attitude for the Inland Revenue to adopt and that it causes complications in the citizen's accounts and record-keeping because he must keep those accounts and records for six years. Yet, when the boot is on the other foot and the citizen claims money from the Government, a limit of six months, or now 12 months, is imposed. Perhaps the Minister will tell us why this distinction is made in respect of the citizen.
My main point is this. Section 4 (1) of the Ministry of Social Security Act, 1966 provides:
Every person in Great Britain of or over the age of sixteen whose resources are insufficient to meet his requirements"—

and those words are written in letters of gold in every Ministry of Social Security office which I have entered—
shall be entitled
to certain payments.
Is it not a little ridiculous to say that the time limit within which a social security payment should be made to a citizen whose resources are insufficient to meet his requirements should be extended from six to 12 months simply to put the matter on all fours with the time limit in the National Insurance Act? The insurance payment is a matter of right. It is a matter of compassion to meet the situation of a man or woman whose resources are insufficient. It is not logical or sensible to say that that condition continues 12 months later.
Payments made under the Supplementary Benefit Scheme are urgently needed to help a man or woman in trouble. The period of six months under the regulations appears to be excessive. One could perhaps say that six months is necessary to seek out the people who are in real need. But deliberately to extend in an amending Bill six months to 12 months is not sensible. It has a degree of illogicality which does not appeal to me and of seeking to bring everything into line and to make everything tidy administratively, which is a characteristic of all Governments, but which might be considered again in the context of the Bill.
Secondly, by the Bill the Government are to postpone indefinitely economies of£3 million a year. In 1966, they saw£3 million for the saving, and they have failed to save it. The Minister of State said that they had failed, and he was right. This£3 million a year has presumably been taken into account in all the calculations of Government expenditure and saving which we have had since the Government came to power.
The Government have been looking for the saving of much smaller sums than£3 million a year in the last 12 or 18 months. They have been scraping the barrell. They have deprived the fourth child of free school milk and have done other similar earth-shattering things. Here they have lost£3 million, which is very regrettable, particularly to me. Recently, I have been trying to persuade Ministers, and even the Prime Minister, in connection with this matter. I make no apology


for that. I know that someone will say that I am seeking to increase Government expenditure and that that is what Tories do not do. But I am speaking for myself and not for the Tory Party.
I have been trying to persuade the Prime Minister that a certain amount of money should be spent on improving the conditions and amenities of the offices of the Ministry of Social Security. Some of them are disgraceful. If any hon. Gentle man or member of the public goes to the Ministry offices at the Elephant and Castle, or in John Adam Street, or to the offices of the Department of Employment and Productivity in St. James's Square, and we are on legitimate business, we are shown into a comfortable waiting room, with carpets on the floor, magazines to read and comfortable chairs. Everything is very hospitable and friendly, which is as it should be.
However, if a person in less fortunate circumstances goes to a Ministry of Social Security office—and I have one in my constituency which I know well—the conditions which he finds there are very different. Why? The Government, rightly—and I commend them for this—have spent much time and energy in telling people that they have a right to social security benefits and that there is nothing to be ashamed of in taking them.
Hon. Members know that they have to persuade visitors to their weekly "surgeries" of this. Many people, and especially the elderly, come to us for help and we say to them, "You are entitled to help. Go to the Ministry". They reply, "No, I will not go there. I do not want to go. I do not like it". They make every excuse for not going. One of the reasons for that is the conditions which they find at the offices.
I asked the Prime Minister about this matter on 22nd October and he replied:
Naturally"—
the provision of amenities at the offices—
will be one of the duties of the new-merged Department, within, of course, the overall limitations on expenditure to which the Government must have very close regard."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 22nd October, 1968; Vol. 770, c. 1086.]
On 24th October, the Secretary of State said:
We had to take over hundreds of offices all over the place, and we have inherited some

in poor condition…. We have to improve our offices…I shall compete with the First Secretary of State in insisting in getting as much money spent on our offices as she does on her offices."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 24th October, 1968; Vol. 770, c. 1659.]
These two remarks from the Prime Minister and the Secretary of State gave me much encouragement. I believed that an effort would be made to make comfortable and warm, perhaps even attractive, the places where large numbers of our fellow citizens—most of whom are in trouble, a lot of whom are ill and old—have to wait sometimes for a very long time, to receive their rights under our legislation. The only offence which these people have committed against society is that they have been caught in the act of appearing to be poor. I ask the hon. Gentleman whether this deferment means a deferment of the provision of better amenities, for they will also be part of 1969.

5.0 p.m.

Mr. Albert Booth: Clause 1 of the Bill stems from a situation whereby it has been impossible to secure the transfer of the cost of unemployment benefit to the employer from the National Insurance Fund. One of my right hon. Friends has already referred to the conditions under which a number of men are suspended from employment, without being regarded as unemployed. These are men on short-time working, men who have not had their cards returned to them, men whose cards are still held by their employers. Among such men are those on strike. It is in the nature of strikes that their length cannot be predicted. Some of them will be settled within 24 hours, while some, like the terrible one in my constituency, will go on for half a year or more.
In this situation we have to look at the effect of our current regulations in the light of what we are attempting to do when we try to pass on to the employer the liability to pay unemployment benefit to men whom they suspend for a short time. I do not accept that it inevitably follows that there should be any uniformity between the way in which the State treats men and the way in which employers treat them. Neither does it follow that all employers will treat suspended men, men involved in industrial disputes worse than the State does now. In certain circumstances the way in which


the State treats men who are rendered unemployed because of a strike is abominable.
Under Section 22 of the 1965 Act a provision whereby men laid off due to a dispute, who are in a similar class or grade to others who happen to be financing or participating in the dispute or directly interested in it, are excluded entirely from unemployment benefit. By a parallel provision of our social security legislation, they are also excluded from receiving social security benefits. They are, therefore, left without any means of income whatever. While I agree with the Minister that this is a modest and worthwhile Measure I would urge upon him that it could have been less modest and more worth while if it had addressed itself to this very grievious defect in our National Insurance legislation.
Under the regulation there may be men who are not regarded by the general public, their employer, or by them selves as participating in the dispute, but who still cannot draw unemployment or social security benefit. We must face up to this if we are to have any form of legislation which will transfer to employers the liability for payment of men suspended, for any reason, from employment for a short period. The way in which trade unionism is evolving means that there are men who are recruited into what were at one time the craft unions. These men were until a few years ago members of general workers' unions. For example, there are within the membership of the Amalgamated Engineers and Foundryworkers Union, men who are slingers, crane drivers, hardeners, and semi-skilled machinists. There are men doing exactly the same job, sometimes working on the next machine or in the same shop, organised by the General and Municipal Workers Union. If the General and Municipal Workers Union brings those men out on strike, the members of the A.E.F. are automatically excluded from benefits because they are in the same class or grade.
The reverse is true. It may be that the non-striking union is totally opposed to the strike and refuses to assist in any way with it. By its rules many of its members can be excluded from union benefit because the union does not regard them as being on strike. We are faced with a very serious problem, and

I urge my hon. Friend to press his colleagues in the Government to bring before us a measure dealing with this serious anomaly as quickly as possible.
It may be that the reply I will get will be ": Wait for Donovan". That will not be a satisfactory reply. There are many serious, sophisticated industrial problems to which the Donovan Report addresses itself, including this one. But here it was dealing with an anachronism, something which has existed for far too long and which could be got out of the way without any controversy, and which would be welcomed, I hope, by both sides of the House. I have less reason to hope for this now than I had before the C.B.I. made its most recent statement on its attitude towards this problem.
I turn now to a Clause which deals with the extension of the time limit within which certain claims can be made. This is a particularly welcome provision, but I question how far it goes. It has been said that the legislation we pass here dealing with National Insurance in many cases lands up as a constituency problem on a Minister's desk. I wonder whether any Ministers have more constituency problems than those who deal with National Insurance problems.
To appreciate why so many of these problems arise we have to realise the complexity of our National Insurance regulations. I am not at all surprised that many of my constituents cannot understand the way in which some of these regulations are applied, and this is no reflection on their intelligence. I consider that the overwhelming majority of my constituents are very intelligent. I sometimes wonder whether Ministers—and I do not refer only to Ministers of the present Government—have under stood our National Insurance regulations. Bearing in mind their complexity, we have to realise that it is almost inevitable that some people will make late claims.
I will not weary the House by giving many examples, but I should like to give just one of a constituent of mine who made a late claim; and I do so just to demonstrate the problem which I see in this Clause. A woman in my constituency, during her work, which involved visiting a number of people in the constituency, had an accident; she was involved in a car crash and knocked off her scooter by the car. She applied


for industrial injury benefit. She was told she was not entitled to benefit and so ceased to make a claim during the period she was off work. She was advised later, however, by a Ministry official that she should continue to make a claim if she was going to appeal against the decision.
The woman successfully appealed against the decision. The tribunal found that she was entitled to benefit. How ever, it said she had not got a good cause, because of making a late claim—although she continued to make the claim on being informed she was en titled to do so. Here is a woman denied benefit, to which she was clearly en titled, merely because her claim was late in circumstances which would be under stood by 99·9 per cent. of the population.
I therefore welcome the Bill so far as it goes in that it makes the financial provision necessary to accompany the regulations which will extend the period in which people can claim benefit. I would, however, welcome an assurance from my hon. Friend tonight that, in dealing with this problem, regard will be had to the complexity of our insurance regulations and some understanding that because of this complexity there may inevitably be a number of late claims.

5.12 p.m.

Mr. Kenneth Baker: As this is the season of good cheer, I should like to start with a compliment to one of the Members of the party opposite. Unfortunately he is not in his place to receive it. I refer to the hon. Member for Liverpool, Walton (Mr. Heffer). It is a fairly rare thing for him to have a compliment from this side of the House, even rarer from his own party. He, in 1966, during the Second Reading of the Bill of that year, was the only Member in the debate who foresaw the difficulty which is contained in Clause 1 of this Bill. He foresaw that it would be very difficult indeed to get an arrangement whereby employers would contribute to the pay of suspended workers instead of the State having to do so. It is a pity he is not in his place to see that the chicken has come home to roost. I am not making a party political point. I think it is regrettable that in the last three years there has been no progress in

arrangements between industry, the employers and the Trades Union Congress and the Government for a system where by employers as such should take over this responsibility.
I certainly support this Bill, because if it does not come into force that will mean that the 1966 Act will come into force automatically, and that would mean simply that the workers who are suspended because of a lull in the work of their firms would not get any unemployment benefit for six days. It would mean, for example, that if a worker was laid off on Christmas Eve this year—if the 1966 Act were in force on 24th December—he would not get any benefit at all till 2nd January. Obviously, this is some thing the House cannot consider approving.
I ask the Minister what negotiations have been made or are under way between the Government and industry, what negotiations are under way between the T.U.C. and the C.B.I., if he knows of them, what negotiations are under way between the T.U.C. and the Government, to establish a system to cover this eventuality.
My own industrial experience has been mainly with the textile and clothing industries in which one practice is to lay off workers when business is slack. I know firms in certain parts of the country which still have this deplorable practice. I do not think that today any progressive company would do this. Most progressive companies would be quite willing to take on this obligation. How ever, it must be accepted that if they are to do this it will mean an increase in industrial costs.
I have been reading recently Kitty Muggeridge's life of Beatrice Webb. It is very interesting to see what the thinking of many early Fabians was on this question. We would not be having this debate today if that thinking of some of the early Fabians had prevailed. She and her husband were concerned to cover this sort of eventuality. The question is whether this responsibility should be borne by industry rather than by the State.
I would only say that if we increase industry's burden in the way of social security benefits we must accept that this is an additional industrial cost. It is not something that could just be paid for out


of the air; it is something which industry will bear. I would remind the House that industry already pays about£800 million a year as its contribution to social security, and the C.B.I, today has made a very generous offer that industry will contribute£7 million to the Redundancy Fund to help it out of the red. I do not think industry would at all shirk this responsibility. I only hope the Government can establish the basis of negotiations to bring this about. Till they do so the 1966 Act has to be held in suspense.
It is not an easy problem to solve because workers are suspended or laid off for a short time for a variety of reasons. If it is the responsibility of a company to have laid off a worker be cause the order book is not long enough and business is generally slack, it is the responsibility of the company either to fire him or carry him on the payroll, but there are circumstances in which industry may have to lay off a worker not as a result of its own inefficiency but because of the inefficiency of one of its suppliers. An obvious example of this is the car industry, where production may be held up on the production line because of a breakdown of supplies from one of the components suppliers. This raises a series of problems which any agreement must take into account. I suspect—perhaps I am being a little pessimistic—that in the long run it may not be possible to cover these sorts of eventualities by any form of agreement, because I do not see how we can impose on, for example, a car manufacturer an obligation to keep a very large labour force not working in the plant if he is not directly responsible for the fact that they are not working. None the less, I think the Government should continue to explore ways to do this, because unless they do so this is a charge the Government will have to go on paying,£3 million a year for the foreseeable future.

5.18 p.m.

Mr. Michael McGuire: I want to refer briefly to the last few sentences of the hon. Member for Acton (Mr. Kenneth Baker)—and this will be a repudiation, I hope an effective one, of what his hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Garston (Mr. Fortescue) said—when he unfairly accused the Government of not fulfilling what he says was

a threat or a promise that they would introduce compulsory legislation about this six day rule under which, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Sowerby (Mr. Houghton) said, workers went to a limbo because they were unemployed, because they were in a dispute or laid off by their employers.
I have been reading what my right hon. Friend who was then Minister of Social Security said. She gave the promise that if necessary the Government would introduce legislation, but the main theme was to direct attention to continuing negotiations to solve this very difficult question. It is interesting to note what my hon. Friend the present Under-Secretary of State for Employment and Productivity said in answer to a Question on this very point on 14th October, 1968. He was asked by my hon. Friend the Member for Accrington (Mr. Arthur Davidson) what the Government were doing about this difficult question. The answer was a fairly long Written Answer, which says it is a very big problem, negotiations are continuing, the Government are fulfilling the promise which they made in the original debate. There was not a definite statement that the Government would introduce legislation. There was the promise that, if necessary, legislation would be introduced, but the emphasis was, rightly, on continuing negotiation.

Mr. Fortescue: Would the hon. Gentle man refer to the OFFICIAL REPORT of 29th January, 1968, c. 870, where the same Parliamentary Secretary said, in answer to a Question, that the then Minister of Labour had
decided that legislation would be necessary
and was
consulting industry about the details.
The hon. Gentleman added:
… I hope that my hon. Friend is reassured by the knowledge that we understand perfectly well that the legislation must be passed and operated by March 1969. I gladly give that reassurance to the House."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 29th Jan., 1968; Vol. 757, c. 870.]

Mr. McGuire: The hon. Gentleman first based his accusation on what was said in the debate on Second Reading of the National Insurance (Industrial In juries) Bill in February, 1966. My right hon. Friend said this:
Since it is imperative that satisfactory wage agreements should be made between workers


and employees before the end of the three years, the Government will examine the position reached at the end of 18 months—half way through—and, if necessary, will introduce legislation to make such agreements compulsory."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 7th February 1966; Vol. 724. c. 45.]
That effectively answers the hon. Gentle man's accusation.
I turn to the question of the extension of the period in which a person can claim benefit. The difficulties arising in relation to the retirement pensions for women have been mentioned. The question of benefits which are due as of right but which through an oversight are not claimed when they first become due applies almost exclusively to women. The case mentioned by the hon. Member for Chelsea (Mr. Worsley) was rather different because that was the case of a woman who was entitled as a result of her husband's contributions. The cases I have in mind are those where women suddenly wake up to their rights but learn that their claims are outside the time limit. The Advisory Committee commented in favour of the limit being set aside if a person could prove that he was unable to claim within the time limit. I believe that that will be too narrowly interpreted and that cases of the type I have in mind will still fall outside this province. I have taken this question up with the local office of the Department of Social Security.
I believe that there is a common law duty upon any Government Department to use reasonable diligence in seeking out those entitled to a benefit to which they have contributed. The Department of Social Security is not lax in the matter of drawing people's attention to the necessity of keeping their cards properly stamped. There is a sanction in the form of a penalty for anyone who fails to bring their contributions quickly up to date.
This failure to make application in due time generally applies to women, because a man who retires has known for some time that his retirement is pending and he makes his claim within the period allowed by law. When a woman hears or reads something—barrack room lawyers often serve a useful purpose—and asks Social Security, "Am I entitled to benefit?", she is told, "Yes. Your contributions are in order. Unfortunately, though, you must forgo benefit from the

date when you first became entitled". This is wrong.
I appreciate that it is unlikely that the Government will accede to my modest request, but the introduction of this modest reform would not lead to catastrophic harm. The Advisory Commit tee's terms of reference were wide enough to deal with this. Sickness benefits, unemployment problems, and the question of people being out of work for other reasons, were mentioned, but this question was not mentioned in detail. It is not a glaring omission, but I wish that the Advisory Committee had directed its attention to the matter.
Contributors would like to think that the quid pro quo of the Government's seeking them out and making them fulfil their obligations regarding contributions is that the Government would also seek them out to pay them benefits to which they are entitled and that the Government would no longer shelter behind the protection of an arbitrary time limit with in which claims must be made.
The hon. Member for Garston referred to the£3 million which the Government would seem to have forgone, in the sense that they are still to shoulder the burden for this; because the employers are trying to reconcile the principle that men unemployed because of a trade dispute should not be able to benefit from their own wrongdoing, so to speak, when acceding to the Minister's request that for the initial period they should shoulder this burden by giving them a guaranteed minimum weekly wage. The hon. Member said that, if this problem could be overcome, he would like the£3 million to be used to—

Mr. Fortescue: Probably I caused con fusion. I mentioned the two matters in the same breath, but I did not suggest that£3 million should be spent in that way. I said that, because£3 million less would be available than had been thought, I hope that the improvements in the amenities of the offices would not be delayed.

Mr. McGuire: I understood the hon. Gentleman to mean that he would like a large part of the£3 million spent on improving the offices. The point he has made in his intervention has effectively snookered a point I was about to make. This is a very modest Bill. It does no


one any great harm, but I wish that it had done more good to those who are disqualified from benefit because they are outside the period laid down under the old regulations and will still be out side the period under the new regulations.
I hope that the Government will quickly conclude with employers a scheme to overcome the problem of the six days' loss of benefit. If the Government cannot reach a satisfactory agreement, presumably the necessary pro visions will be included in the comprehensive review of the whole question of social security. We await that major Bill with anxiety. When we introduce a satisfactory wage-related benefit scheme, with allied schemes, it will offer another great difficulty for hon. Members opposite in that they will not be able to chant about another failure on the part of the Government to put into effect some of their promises.
If my hon. Friend cannot meet in this Bill the point which I made about women pensioners, I hope that it will be included in the next Bill following that complete review. I welcome this modest Measure, which will do nobody any harm and will do some people some good.

5.32 p.m.

Mr. Arthur Blenkinsop: I apologise for not having been here when the Minister moved the Second Reading of the Bill.
I intervene because this is a subject which affects a large number of my con stituents in the shipyards and the repair yards who are caught by this provision on many occasions. It is an unhappy fact that, particularly in the repair yards, men are suspended for brief periods throughout their working lives. It is, unfortunately, a habit. I and, I know, all union Members concerned are anxious to see that situation ended. These men seem to get the worst of all worlds. For some purposes they are treated as not being unemployed and for other purposes they are treated as though they were unemployed. That affects not only the matters raised in the Bill but also problems of holiday pay, redundancy pay and other matters, too. It is one of those wretched issues which has embittered feeling in the shipyards and repair yards for a long time.
One reason why I am glad that the Government are introducing this continuing Bill instead of immediately imposing a scheme, as otherwise they would wish to do, is that we are still in the midst of very complicated negotiations in the shipyards and repair yards on wage issues, of which this is inevitably an element. None of us wishes to endanger those discussions. We hope that they will be fruitful and that we shall reach the agreement for which we seek.
Hon. Members opposite have said that if this provision were imposed by law or accepted voluntarily by employers, as part of a general agreement, as a charge upon them, it would add to their costs. That may be true, but it must be remembered that employers in this country are relatively fortunate in this respect com pared with most of their Continental competitors, who have to pay much greater sums for such provisions than do employers in this country. From that point of view employers should not regard it with quite as much fear and anxiety as that with which in fact they seem to regard it. I very much hope that my hon. Friend will seek to reach an early conclusion on this subject and will not regard the Bill as an indefinite extension of the present procedure war ranting further unnecessary delay in negotiations. I hope that the Ministry will look closely at the complicated and generally unsatisfactory situation of the suspended worker, because it gives rise to much ill will and bitterness which we might be able to overcome.

5.36 p.m.

Mr. William Wilson: I will not detain the House for long, but this is the right opportunity to reiterate what was said by my "hon. Friend the Member for Ince (Mr. McGuire) about what the Bill does not contain. It is clear from Clause 2 that the Government are intent on tidying up the National Insurance legislation, but beyond any doubt what calls out for tidying up is the position which has existed since 1924 in respect of the payment of unemployment pay to those who are put out of work not because they are directly involved in disputes but because, indirectly, they are caught up within them. The Government could have taken the opportunity to tidy up that very important part of the legislation.
This opportunity not having been taken, I want the Minister in his reply to assure me that the whole question is not being shelved for another Session. If it is to be shelved, then many who are caught in this anomaly in National Insurance legislation will be disappointed.

5.38 p.m.

Mr. Peter Tapsell: I suspect that this Bill is not quite as modestly innocuous as the Minister of State suggested in his pleasant opening speech, nor as robustly beneficial a contribution to the festive season as was implied by the right hon. Member for Sowerby (Mr. Houghton). Contrary to what the right hon. Member for Sowerby suggested, the 1966 National Insurance Act has not been forced to lapse in this respect because employers have been unreasonable in making trivial difficulties and in dragging their feet. It goes deeper than that. Clause 1 is made necessary by one of the Government's many broken Election pledges—the failure to introduce a compulsory guaranteed minimum wage.
When the right hon. Lady the Member for Lanarkshire, North (Miss Herbison) made her speech in February, 1966, we were on the eve of a General Election. At that point we had not had the July, 1966 economic crisis. In those days it was both politically attractive and possibly even economically sound to suppose that these proposals could be implemented. The right hon. Member for Sowerby said that at that time it seemed reasonable to suppose that over a period of three years these proposals would be amicably worked out with industry and put into effect. I suggest that one of the reasons why it has not been found possible to do so it that it is not easy to transfer this obligation right across the board from the State to industry until there is a compulsory minimum national wage. If one attempted to do it in the present situation hardship would be caused in many cases.
The transitional period of three years which the right hon. Member for Lanarkshire, North mentioned, when introducing the 1966 National Insurance Act must, therefore, be extended—rather like those other transitional periods at present covering 2½ per cent. house mortgages, the surplus on the balance of payments

and the 6 per cent. growth rate in the economy. The Bill is, therefore, only the small tip of a large iceberg.
The Government are never lucky in their attempts to control expenditure. Normally, increased expenditure is caused by the Government introducing new legislation. On this occasion they will be involved in an extra£3 million a year expenditure because they are not able to give effect to legislation which they passed three years ago. The unfortunate people of Britain seem to suffer either way.
In considering Clause 1, three questions must be asked: first, will the proposals be fair to workers; secondly, will they be fair to employers; and, thirdly, will they be fair to the nation as a whole? When one considers whether they will be fair to workers, one must be careful not to fall into the trap which is increasingly being set for us by intellectuals—and particularly those who have never had much to do with assembly lines or blast furnaces—that the workers of this country are a lot of layabouts who will seize every possible opportunity to abuse the National Insurance Scheme.
Those who have had the privilege to represent industrial constituencies know that that is far from the case. One of the great problems in all these matters is how to operate a scheme fairly for the 95 per cent. of our fellow countrymen who would not seek to abuse it, without at the same time laying it open to exploitation by the feckless 5 per cent. who make all our planning in these spheres so difficult.
It is in that context that we must consider the whole idea of the six-day suspension rule. This rule is a fairly new development in the approach to unemployment benefit. Although I fully take the point, which the right hon. Member for Sowerby made about the extent to which these provision have been abused in the past, and the extent to which certain employers have sought to shift their responsibilities on to the National Insurance Scheme, it is not always easy to draw a clear-cut distinction between unemployment and suspension.
The right hon. Member for Sowerby gave an example of a factory in his constituency which sometimes did not require its labour for a fortnight or so, but did not want to get rid of its workers.
There are other examples. A serious fire in a factory might mean that while the workers were not to be dismissed, they could not be employed for two or three weeks, or even longer. As I say, it is not always easy to draw a clear cut distinction in these matters. We should not, therefore, be too certain that the proposed provisions would in all cases be as beneficial in their effect as has been suggested
As to whether or not they will be fair to employers, will the Minister give a clear answer to the question which many hon. Members have asked; do the Government intend to introduce legislation to compel all employers to pay the equivalent of unemployment benefit to suspended or short-time workers? If that is their intention and if it is not to be done by agreement, or when a compulsory national basic minimum wage is in operation, then, this will be difficult at a time when other tax burdens on industry have gone up sharply—this applies particularly to smaller factories. I now represent a constituency which has only small industrial units and they are finding the effects, for example, of the new special import deposits extremely difficult, so the Government should be careful before pressing ahead without the agreement of industry.
As to whether the proposals are likely to be fair to the nation as a whole, one must strike a note of anxiety about whether or not unofficial strikes will be made more likely. It appears on the face of it that, if an employer must pay suspension benefits to any of his employees who are put out of work as a result of an unofficial strike in another part of the industry, or perhaps as a result of the activities of a trade union operating in his factory but different from the union representing the men who are put out of work, the pressures on employers to meet the demands of unofficial strike leaders could be increased.
My only comment about Clause 2 is on the proposal to extend from six months to 12 months the period within which social security benefits may be encashed. As hon. Members have made clear, this is a generally acceptable doc trine, both in terms of extending the period of time and also in keeping some limit on the period. We have all had

constituency cases brought to our attention of people who, for good reason, have not claimed their benefit within six months. By extending it to 12 months we appear to be giving a fair answer to this problem. We must thank the National Insurance Advisory Committee for its Report on this subject.
But it is worth noting that the Inland Revenue can claim back money due to it from taxpayers for a period of six years after it becomes due It seems that one criterion is used when the State is owed money and another when it owes money. I have never been able to understand why, in dealing with individuals, the State is always allowed to have the law so heavily loaded in its favour. Why should a national insurance contributor who happens to be, even under the new proposals, a year and a day over the period in which he should have applied, excluded from benefit, while the State has up to six years to demand payment from any taxpayer who owes it money. This extraordinary distinction seem to underline one aspect of the present national discontent, which is the subordination of the individual to the State.

Mr. Houghton: I suppose the hon. Gentleman has not overlooked the fact that the taxpayer can go back six years to claim back tax paid in excess of his true liability. It works both ways.

Mr. Tapsell: That is a fair point. On the other hand, the National Insurance contributor may have contributed to the Fund for 30 or even 40 years, but if he has failed to claim benefit for a period, at present, of six months, and, under the Bill, of one year, he forfeits the benefit for which he has made a lifetime's contributions. I do not know whether the right hon. Gentleman has any private insurance policies, but I am sure that if he had some benefit to claim under them and a private enterprise insurance company told him, "We are very sorry, but payment fell due a week and a year ago so we will not give you anything, although you have paid your insurance premiums for 40 years," his attitude would be as lacking in the Christmas spirit as he pre tended it to be in attacking my hon. Friend the Member for Chelsea (Mr. Worsley).

5.52 p.m.

The Under-Secretary of State for Employment and Productivity (Mr. Roy Hattersley): The hon. Member for Chelsea (Mr. Worsley), described the Bill, in what, I am sure, he believed to be a bravura opening, as a typical product of the Government—" bitty and brought for ward in haste." Neither of these descriptions is true, as I hope to show. How ever, before turning to the main criticisms that he and some of his hon. Friends offered on Clause 1, I attempt to answer some specific questions on Clauses 2 and 3.
The hon. Member asked why my hon. Friend the Minister of State had said that under Clause 3 certain regulations need not be referred to the National Insurance Advisory Committee. He asked why, if that were the customary practice, it need be repeated in the Bill. The pro vision is in the Bill because although the practice is identical to practices operating on other occasions it needs to be reiterated in respect of the new provisions. It simply enables the provisions of Clause 1 to go ahead without the otherwise necessary reference. It is, therefore, identical with past practice but applies to the new practice in Clause 1.
The hon. Gentleman then developed what he described, familiarly to us, as a constituency case. I must remind him and other hon. Members on both sides that Clause 2 covers encashment—payment—rather than claims. From the error of confusing claims and payment I totaly absolve the hon. Member for Horn-castle (Mr. Tapsell), byt many of the points made by the hon. Member for Chelsea and other Members opposite are not relevant to the Bill at all, in that they had to do with claims for benefit rather than for application for that benefit to be paid.
Since the rules governing Second Reading debates enable me to go sufficiently wide to answer the question, I can say that claims will be dealt with by regulations soon to be presented to the House. They are related to existing Statutes and will enable the hon. Gentle man to raise some of his points at that time. I assure him that if he wants his specific case looked into my hon. Friend will be happy to do so.
The hon. Gentleman also complained that the Bill had an inelegant title, indica-

tive, so he said, of its "bitty" nature. If he looks at the provisions he will see that it is the sensible way to cover subjects so diverse, despite similarities, that "&c" is almost the only description that could be used to encompass them all adequately.
The Bill covers a number of social security subjects, including the three points that were raised by the hon. Member for Liverpool, Garston (Mr. Fortescue). He asked: why put a 12 months' limit on supplementary benefits as well as on National Insurance payment? There are two answers. The first concerns the fundamental disagreement between my right hon. Friends, my hon. Friends and myself, and the hon. Member, for he distinguished between those benefits which are paid "as of right" and those which are paid "not as of right". To my right hon. Friends, my hon. Friends and myself all the payments are paid as of right. There may have to be a demonstration that the right is appropriate, but a right it still is.
The second, and not less important, though more practical point is that very often the two payments are made together, and some of us regard it as a great social advance that that should be so. If they are made together, it seems reasonable that representations for payment should cover the same period.

Mr. Fortescue: I take the hon. Gentle man's second point, and thank him for it. On the other question, these payments are made as of right, but they are made as of right to a person whose resources are insufficient to meet his requirements. My point was that this, as stated in the 1966 Act, implies, anyway, that it is pre sent need which is the right, and not the need 12 months later.

Mr. Hattersley: Again. I must put it to the hon. Gentleman, with all respect, that he makes a false distinction. All payments are made subject to some rules and regulations, and the quotation he gave is just one of the rules which govern the payment of supplementary benefit. The issue of rights does not enter into it.
I turn now to what was clearly the subject of the more substantial criticism of the Bill made by hon. Members opposite, and what is clearly the most controversial aspect—Clause 1. The hon. Mem-


ber for Chelsea described it—I think absolutely accurately—as "postponing the transfer of responsibility for suspended workers from the Government to individual employers". That was clearly our intention in 1966. That was what we set out to do. That is what we thought was demanded of us, both in terms of equity and, what is not unimportant, of intellectual consistency.
Let me make it quite clear to the hon. Member for Acton (Mr. Kenneth Baker) that such a transfer remains our hope. I shall try to answer directly and specifically the last questions put to me by the hon. Member for Horncastle, but I say again that transfer remains our hope. It remains our hope because of the considerations of equity and of intellectual consistency which guided our original statement.
In terms of consistency, the case was demonstrated by my right hon. Friend the Member for Sowerby (Mr. Houghton). Men suspended for a short period are clearly the responsibility of the individual employer. In a real sense they are still the employer's employees. They have no intention of seeking new employment. They expect to return to their old employment, and are encouraged to expect so to do.
In terms of equity, the question should be asked: why should these people who are laid off for a short time be a charge on the general insurance fund? Why should the£3 million—quoted as the benefits they receive from the Fund in a full year—be paid by other contributors to the Fund? That question has a special force when one remembers that suspended workers are very often to be found in highly paid industries. It has to be remembered that suspended workers very often receive in a year which includes periods of suspension wages substantially in excess of what other contributors to the Fund will receive in a full year, in which no suspensions occur—

Mr. Eric S. Heffer: I have been attending a meeting of the Race Relations Committee for two hours, so I apologise if what I ask has already been dealt with. If it is to be the responsibility of the employer, why is it not contained in the Bill? This is an important point.

Mr. Hattersley: My hon. Friend could not have returned at a more appropriate moment because, having established the principle, I want now to explain why it cannot at present be applied. The establishment and the application of the principle remain our hope and intention. If it was right that the suspended worker should be the responsibility of the individual employer, it was equally right that we should hope that responsibility would be assumed by the individual employer as a result of a voluntary agreement.
I assure the House that when, three years ago, we announced our intention of abandoning the then procedure, it was our earnest hope and belief that voluntary agreements would be brought about to meet the position. At the same time it was equally necessary—this is why the charge of coercion is absurd—for us to assure the working population that in the absence of such voluntary agreements the Government would not leave them during suspension without any payment at all. We had to give that assurance and it in no way eroder our intention that voluntary agreements should fill the place of the insurance payment.
Through the Ministry of Labour and later through the National Joint Advisory Council, my right hon. Friend and her predecessor constantly urged on industry the preparation of voluntary agreements. The C.B.I, did all it could to encourage voluntary agreements. We always accepted that provision of voluntary agreements would be difficult and that there would be some conflict between the parties to those agreements. Today's Bill is before the House because those conflicts and those disagreements are so substantial and so related to other matters which must shortly come before the House that a longer time is necessary for the Government to pursue their original aim. But I say again that the original aim will be pursued.
The C.B.I, and the Trades Union Congress disagree—perhaps it is not unfair to say fundamentally—about the nature of such voluntary agreements and any provision which the Government might make. They disagree about the methods in which a guarantee would be calculated and about the level of guarantee. The C.B.I, was particularly and properly concerned about the cost of the scheme and


its effect on strikes. The T.U.C. was particularly and properly concerned about the need to ensure that no worker should be less well off under a private scheme of an individual employer than by the previous and now to be continued State provision. Clearly, for low paid workers with large families, since the State scheme is related to needs and dependants, there would always be a danger at the margin of the scheme that some workers would be less well off under a private guarantee.
Because of these disagreements and because of impending decisions by the Government both in the labour field and in the social security field, we felt it right to introduce this Bill asking for a postponement of our original intentions. I very much regret that hon. Members opposite have chosen to use a sensible and rational decision by the Government in an attempt to make party political capital out of a provision which others see in less partisan terms.
I can think of nothing more reasonable. The Government had a point of view which they hope to see accepted by industry. We discussed it with industry for some time. Then, because of the substantial and real problems which industry found in implementing that point of view, we agreed to postpone our original plans for a period. This seems to be the best sort of responsible government. I am happy to say that it seems to be the view of the Confederation of British Industries, which described it in a newsletter as "constituting a notable victory for the consultative process which we have long advocated".
Related to the disagreements between the C.B.I. and the T.U.C. over the nature of the provision is the question raised by the hon. Member for Horncastle—the effect on strikes. I accept entirely that one can conceive of a situation in which a guarantee, paid for by industry and industry alone, creates an added pressure for that industry to settle strikes at any cost. One thinks of a components manufacturer in the industry quoted by the hon. Member for Liverpool, Garston (Mr. Fortescue), the motor industry. A few men on strike may bring to an end a production line in motor-car assembly plant and put out of work thousands,

perhaps tens of thousands, of men. The cost to that individual company of maintaining its guaranteed week would be substantial. That company would naturally and inevitably urge the components manufacturer to settle the strike on terms which they might otherwise regard as unacceptable. I accept that.
That is one of the reasons why the scheme we are discussing and the Bill which we recommend to the House are intimately associated with the Donovan Report, and the White Paper on Indus trial Relations, which is expected in the New Year. This is why there holding provisions should continue until our eventual conclusions on Donovan are made public and operate within industry.
This seems particularly appropriate to our attitude towards the disqualifications for benefit under Section 22 (1) of the 1965 Act to which my hon. Friend the Member for Barrow in Furnace (Mr. Booth) referred. He warned me half way through his speech that he would not be satisfied if I said that the Government view on that disqualification would be revealed only as part of the Donovan White Paper. I regret that I must anticipate his dissatisfaction, but that is the answer he will have to receive. The specific Section of the Bill to which he referred is commented on in the Donovan Report. Donovan recommended that the Government should take action on that specific subsection—" grade and class "—about which he was concerned. It is only reasonable to expect that when we respond in one way or the other it must be done in the general Donovan context rather than in anticipation of the other things we have to say and do about the Donovan Report.
Finally, a word about the£3 million cost, which the hon. Member for Horn castle said whichever way it goes industry has to suffer—

Mr. Tapsell: The country.

Mr. Hattersley: —which the country suffers. Some of us find it difficult to draw a distinction between the interests of the two. I am sure the hon. Member does on most occasions. I say, as I believe the whole House says, that a man suspended through no fault of his own, be cause there is a shortage of components, because there is a strike in another


factory, because there is a fall-off in demand or a change in trade or a break down of equipment, must be paid some thing in the period during which he is laid off. The money in one form or another must come from industry. It may come by direct payment; from taxation paid by industry, from the National Insurance contribution from industry. Or it may come from tax or National Insurance contributions paid by the employees. That in itself will be reflected in industrial costs.
What we are saying is that since these men must and should be paid a guaranteed week during the period of suspension, the Government have an obligation to find the most equitable and efficient way in which society should meet that cost. All we are asking is for more time to consider how best that can be done and for more time to do it with the co-operation of both sides of industry.

Mr. Tapsell: Since the hon. Gentle man took me up on my correction, may I make a point which I am sure the visiting team of the International Monetary Fund makes every quarter to his right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer, that one characteristic of this Government is their inability to control Government expenditure.

Question put and agreed to.

Bill accordingly read a Second time.

Bill committed to a Committee of the whole House.—[Mr. Harper.]

Committee Tomorrow.

NEW TOWNS BILL

Order for Second Reading read.

6.20 p.m.

The Minister for Planning and Land (Mr. Kenneth Robinson): I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time.
The purpose of the Bill is to increase the amount of Exchequer money avail able to enable the new towns programme to go ahead.
New town development corporations have to undertake substantial capital works which are financed by loans from the Exchequer. These advances are authorised by my right hon. Friend the Minister of Housing and Local Government for new towns in England and, for new towns in Scotland and Wales, by the appropriate Secretaries of State.
The total amount of money which may be advanced is limited by statute under section 43 of the New Towns Act 1965, as amended by the New Towns Act, 1966. It has become established practice for Parliament to authorise sufficient money for new town development to cover a period of two or three years at a time, and thus the Ministers concerned have periodically to come to Parliament for further amounts. These occasions pro vide an opportunity for a general review of progress.
This I propose to deal with in fairly general terms, but I shall be happy to take up at the close of the debate, if I have the leave of the House, particular matters raised by hon. Members in the course of the debate.
The first New Towns Act of 1946 authorised£50 million. Subsequently, seven further Acts have raised the limit to the£800 million at which it now stands. By the end of November this year, about£615 million had been advanced. The limit applies, however, not only to the money actually advanced, but to the level of commitments entered into by Ministers. At the end of November, a total of£738 million had been committed. Commitments will reach the£800 million limit early in the next financial year.
The House will, therefore, appreciate the need for authority for more money to sustain the programme, and the Bill provides for a further£300 million. This is a substantial amount, but such is the


scale on which we are now building new towns that it is no more than enough to cover a period of some three years ahead.
The Bill thus follows the precedent adopted by successive Governments since 1946 in seeking to cover a relatively short period of new town development. The last time the authority of Parliament was sought for more money, in 1966, most of the "second generation" towns, starting with Cumbernald and including those designated in the first half of the 1960s, were just getting into their stride, and a substantial rise in commitments over the following few years was therefore expected. This is now taking place. Already, nearly a quarter of the money committed is in respect of these towns, most of which are now moving into the peak years of their development.
Meanwhile, as yet few of the "first generation" towns, those designated before 1955, have been completed. Several of them have had expansions approved which will take them well beyond their original population targets.
The substantial build-up of the programme can perhaps best be shown by a simple comparison. During the years immediately preceding the debates on the last New Towns Money Bill, 1963 to 1965, the English new towns were starting and completing about 4,000 to 4,500 houses a year. During the first 10 months of this year, they have already let con tracts for over 10,000 houses. To trans late this into money terms, annual expenditure, which was about£65 million in 1966–67, will be about£90 million this year, and is expected to rise to about£130 million over the next year or two.
The House should appreciate that the additional£300 million for which the Bill provides will be used largely to implement new town decisions taken over the years between 1946 and 1964 by successive Governments.
The latest new towns, the so-called "third generation", Irvine, Newtown, Milton Keynes, Peterborough, Northampton and Warrington, on which decisions have been taken since the last New Towns Act, will not be requiring any large Exchequer advances just yet. They are still getting under way.
I would remind the House that these advances for new town development are

not grants, but loans, repayable with interest. While the new towns were not created primarily with profit in mind, we expect them in their commercial and industrial development to follow good business practice and to give the taxpayer the best value for money they can. It is satisfactory that some of the "first generation" new towns are already paying their way.
Perhaps I can review very briefly the position we have now reached. Last year new towns "came of age" with the twenty-first anniversary of the passing of the 1946 Act. Since there has been no earlier opportunity, I should like to mark the occasion by paying special tribute to Lord Silkin, the author of the original Act, and to Lord Reith, who chaired the committee on whose three reports Lord Silkin based his Act. We should pay recognition, too, to all those in the new town development corporations and in the local authorities who have together made the machinery work so well that about half-million people have already made their homes in the new towns.
I believe that we can all take justifiable pride in what has been achieved. The unanimous reports of the Reith Committee came from a body whose political opinions, I am told, stretched from far left to far right. The 1946 Act received support from all sides of the House, and the New Towns whose further development we now seek to ensure are the results of decisions taken by both Labour and Conservative administrations.
It is also worthy of note, and a tribute to our predecessors, that the machinery created by the New Towns Act, 1946, remains the basic machinery in use to day. It has proved flexible enough to be capable of being used for more than one objective. Most of the new towns are intended to provide homes and jobs for people from the congested conurbations, that is the overspill purpose. But this has not been the only purpose. There are others, like Washington, in County Durham, Irvine, in Ayrshire, and New town, in Wales, whose primary purpose is to encourage economic growth in their respective areas. Indeed, new town development is becoming an increasingly important element in the development of economic and planning strategies on a regional scale.
We should remember, too, that the scale and nature of the latest new towns are markedly different from those envisaged in the original Act of 1946. Then a population of 50,000–60,000 was thought to be about right. The "second generation" towns were aimed at some thing approaching the 100,000 mark. Now, in many of the latest ones, some of which involve the expansion on large existing towns, the targets are higher still. Milton Keynes, for example, is to accommodate no fewer than 250,000 people. I shall have something to say in a moment which has some relevance to this part of my speech. Projects conceived on this scale are one more proof that, although our role in the world may have changed, we retain both our vigour and our vision.
When the Bill for the 1966 Act was introduced Irvine, Milton Keynes and Newtown and the expansions of Peter borough, Northampton and Warrington under the new town machinery were still only proposals. Since then the final decision to go ahead has been taken in each case. A decision has also just been taken to create the new town of Telford, absorbing the existing Dawley, to take another 50,000 people from Birmingham and the Black Country on top of the.50,000 for whom the new town was originally planned, and an Order giving effect to this decision was recently laid.
Draft designation proposals for the expansion of Ipswich have been published, but I must say nothing about that today because there has been a public inquiry into objections, and the inspector's report is still under consideration in my Department.
I turn now to the important decisions which my right hon. Friend announced in a Written Answer today concerning the proposed new town in central Lancashire and related action in North-East Lancashire.
The problems of the North-West Region are well known to the House—the decline of the traditional industries, the long history of migration to more prosperous parts of the country, the pressing tasks of urban renewal. The growth which has taken place in the region has been mainly concentrated around the two conurbations of Merseyside and Manchester, and within these conurbations the con-

tinuing processes of slum clearance, urban renewal and population growth give rise to a continuing need for land for building.
New towns have been designated and town expansion schemes are in progress, but very substantial needs still remain. Unless suitable provision is made, we should probably have to face unplanned peripheral expansion of the conurbations and growing congestion of the whole Manchester-Liverpool belt. Meanwhile, to the north there are areas with the same problems of renewal and migration of population, and a less vigorous pace of industrial growth and change.
There is, accordingly, opportunity to promote a large new development to the north of the conurbations to help with overspill needs and population increase, to form a centre of growth well away from the two conurbations and to con tribute to Lancashire's industrial revival. This calls for a large concentrated effort on the best site available. This is the background to the proposal to build in Preston-Leyland-Chorley area a large new city ultimately to accommodate 500,000 people, and the decisions announced to day represent a development of the highest importance in the Government's strategy for the whole region.
We thought it right to make the statement about the central Lancashire new town at the earliest possible moment so that the House and the people of Lancashire should be aware of it before the Recess. The House will understand that the publication of the draft designation Order, involving as it does the production and distribution of a substantial quantity of maps and explanatory material, must take a little longer. We expect to publish by the end of the month. When the draft Order is published, everyone will be able to see the precise area which is being proposed for designation. The time for objections will run from the date of publication.
I know, however, that many people are anxious to learn as soon as possible, at least in broad terms, the proposed designation area. We have adhered to the consultants' concept of a linear city composed of linked townships and including Chorley, Leyland, Walton-le-Dale, Preston, Fulwood and Longridge. We do not, however, think it necessary that the Order should cover all the land which the


consultants proposed, and we have, there fore, made reductions totalling about 20 per cent. of their proposed area, so that the draft designation Order will cover about 41,000 acres. The areas omitted include land around Coppull and land south of the River Ribble eastwards of the M6. Because we have thought it right to go for a somewhat smaller area, we have not accepted suggestions for extensions to include, for example, Adlington.
As the House knows, my right hon. Friend has insisted that, before decisions were taken, the potential effects of this large new development—the new town proposal—should be fully evaluated, and particularly the effects on North-East Lancashire. Following the studies by consultants, we have had extensive consultations with all the local authorities concerned as well as with the Economic Planning Council. The Government have been helped by the advice of the Regional Council, with its broad regional view, and of the Lancashire County Council, which can see the needs of the administrative county as a whole.
I have also been greatly helped by the meeting I held on 4th December, in Manchester, with representatives of all the local authorities principally concerned. In particular at that meeting, the North-East Lancashire authorities presented their case in a cogent and statesmanlike way. They made it clear that they were not opposed to the new town proposal as such, nor asking for it to be delayed; their proper anxiety was over safeguards for North-East Lancashire. They emphasised that it was for them essential that any decision to proceed with the new town proposal should carry with it provision for North-East Lancashire in the fields of communications, urban renewal and planned growth. These are considerations which have been in the forefront of the minds of my right hon. Friend and the Government as a whole in reaching the decision announced today.
In announcing the decision to proceed to a draft designation Order on the central Lancashire new town, my right hon. Friend, at the same time, said that my right hon. Friend the Minister of Trans port had accepted the case for an improved road link between Calder Valley and the M6. In consultation with local authorities, we shall employ consultants

to prepare pilot schemes of urban renewal in North-East Lancashire; and we shall invite the county council and the Blackburn and Burnley County Borough Councils, as the three local planning authorities, to prepare a plan for the area, consulting, of course, the Regional Council and board. This would assess the future potential of the area, form the basis of future development, make the best use of a new Calder Valley road and reserve suitable sites for industrial development.
As the House knows, the Committee on Intermediate Areas, under Sir Joseph Hunt, will be reporting on "grey" areas such as North-East Lancashire. When the Committtee's report is published, the Government intend to hold discussions with the local authorities in North-East Lancashire on the best way of meeting their needs in the light of the programme for the development of the new town.
These are large proposals of wide effect, and many representations have been made on them. Some have said that the wisdom of Solomon would be needed to reach the right conclusions. Without claiming that, I hope that all the authorities concerned will feel that we have fully and fairly considered the views they have put to us. Already, many people in Lancashire see this proposal to build a great new city, ultimately to take its place alongside Manchester and Liverpool, as an exciting and imaginative venture and—as one very distinguished alderman of Lancashire County Council put it—as the start of a new prosperity for Lancashire.
What we have done so far in the development of new towns has won interest and acclaim throughout the world. This should not make us complacent; in any enterprise there are inevitably things which can be improved. But we can take pride in the progress so far of what has been called an essay in civilisation. Our achievement will be judged by the quality of life which our new towns offer. It is right that this should be the test, and we accept it.
I commend the Bill to the House.

6.30 p.m.

Mr. Mark Carlisle: The Minister has said that the Bill gives us an opportunity to have a general review of progress on new towns. Perhaps I am the only Member to have not one but two new towns in his division.
As the first Member from the North-West, even though not a Lancashire Member, to be able to comment on what the Minster has just said about Leyland and Chorley, I can say that the decision to have a new town in that area will be generally supported. But there was one significant submission from the right hon. Gentleman's speech. He did not say whether the new town is to have development status, which I believe to be a basic question.
There is concern in North-East Lancashire that if the new town has development status, and compensatory economic support is not given to the area, there is a grave danger of its depopulation, and the difficulty of attracting new industry to it will grow. I beg the Minister to think about this carefully. If he gives the new town development status, but does not give similar status to North-East Lancashire, there will be a still greater drain on that area. But if he does not give development status to the new town he may have difficulty in encouraging industry to go there.
Although I feel entitled to make that comment as a Member from the North-West, it is not on those matters that I wish to speak. As I said, I have two new towns in my division. One, the new town of Runcorn, is very much under way and I propose to say little about it. The Minister referred to progress that is being made. I was told recently that Runcorn was being developed faster than any other new town has ever been developed in this country, or, I believe, in the world. Housing is going well there, as is the development of industrial sites.
There seems to be no lack of desire by industry to come to the area. I was particularly glad to see in the 1968 Report of the Runcorn Development Corporation that an area of land has been set aside for private development and that it hopes to interest private developers in building houses for sale. It is vital to try to retain a balance between the private and public sector in such a town and not to build a town which is purely to be tenanted.
My only other comment about Runcorn in relation to the Bill is probably also a general remark that other hon. Members may wish to make. It concerns rents, which are a problem. We have a very

good rent rebate system in Runcorn, but the problem is that the New Town Development Corporation, building new houses, has a duty to balance its housing account and has no stock of older houses which can help in that. The result is that rents are high, and people are living in houses with high rents very near to people living in houses owned by the urban district council and let at lower rents.
This point will perhaps become relevant to the Leyland-Chorley New Town. The Government may have failed to realise that in the new towns in the North west wages and salaries generally are not as high as those in the areas where the first new towns were built. Therefore, it must be borne in mind that rents are a big problem for those who live there.
I turn to what I call the second new town in my division—the decision announced during the past 12 months to designate Warrington as a new town. This is relevant to the Bill, since it is presumably to provide money mainly to build the future new towns. I want to refer particularly to the Minister's decision to include in that designated area a substantial proportion of my division in Cheshire, on the other side of the Ship Canal from Warrington. The decision has been met with bitter disappointment by the people in the area, and it is necessary to say something about the back ground to it.
It started with the Minister appointing consultants to recommend an appropriate area for designation as a new town. They recommended an area of about 22,000 acres. The recommendation led to strong objection from those on the Cheshire side of the canal that that land should not be included in the Warrington new town, and a public inquiry was held.
The Minister, having appointed his consultants, then set up the inquiry and appointed the inspector, and the inspector reported to the Minister, who then had to decide on the basis of his report. Therefore, before the inquiry started the Minister had wholly committed himself in three ways: first, by inviting consultants to make the report; second, by answering as he did the objections to that report; third, and worst of all in this case, by encouraging the consultants to go ahead with Stage 2 of their job,


the production of a master plan, in advance of the public inquiry. I have no doubt that the Minister was to a large extent committed to that plan before the inquiry. To a large extent, he was advocate and judge in his own cause.
The inspector said in his report:
The administrative decision taken by the Minister to proceed with Stage 2 and not to offer the consultants as witnesses, viewed in the light of the restrictive nature of the inquiry imposed by the New Towns Act, lent support to the contention of a number of objectors that the Minister was acting as judge in his own cause, and, moreover, had given judgment in the cause before hearing the evidence.
That somewhat damning indictment from the inspector turned out to be true.
After the careful inquiry, which took about nine days, the inspector recommended, against the original 22,000 acres, the designation of about 17,250 acres. He recommended the exclusion of over 3,000 acres on the Cheshire side and about 1,123 acres in Lancashire. The inspector was clearly being arbitrator between the Minister and the objectors, and his report should, therefore, have carried all the greater weight with the Minister. With what one can only feel is an example of the contempt in which the Government hold the views of those who do not agree with them, the Minister, I regret to say, rejected the views of his inspector. It was a disastrous decision to put back the same 1,200 acres of agricultural land in Cheshire, and I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will think again about it.
It was a strange inquiry. The consultants were not represented. Manchester was not represented. We were told there was need for houses for 40,000 people from Manchester. Alternative sites were suggested. The inspector suggested that they should be looked at. It is doubtful whether the Ministry ever looked at them. The Minister said that no recent representation had been made by Manchester about its need for this land in Cheshire, and Sir Richard Harper, then, I believe, the Chairman of the Housing Committee in Manchester, expressed the view, when the announcement was made, that Manchester was not interested in the new town at Warrington at all—although we were told at the inquiry that it was for Manchester that the new town was being designated.
The arguments against widening the designated area of Warrington to take in agricultural land on the Cheshire side of the canal are overwhelming. The proposal was bitterly opposed by the parish councils, the rural district councils and associations of residents, and it is clear from the inspector's report that it had the overwhelming opposition of people living in the area.
The proposal will mean the loss of yet more first-class agricultural land. I cannot give the exact acreage, but it will be substantial. Yet, in the past, the Minister has refused planning permission for this land when the Minister of Agriculture has objected that it is of high agricultural value. Cheshire is losing agricultural land already at the rate of 2,000 acres a year, so it is already doing its share. In the present economic situation, in particular, when agriculture is so vital to us, it would be a tragedy to take a further substantial amount of high-quality land out of use. The inspector himself believed that this land could safely be excluded from the new town, adding that the new town could be built to accom-date the number of people envisaged without it.
The Minister assumed the need for accommodation for 40,000 people from Manchester in this area. The inspector's point was that they could be adequately absorbed without taking 3,000 acres on the Cheshire side of the canal. The Minister has rejected not only the powerful evidence advanced about densities, but the whole argument of his inspector by saying that he still proposes to put 18,000 people on the Cheshire side. Yet the inspector himself thought that the need of the new town could be met without that having to happen.
The second major objection to the scheme is that the new town would be in immediate proximity to the existing new town at Runcorn. They were to have joined, but now they would have a belt of about three quarters of a mile between them. But the scheme would mean that that side of Cheshire would be completely built up all the way from Manchester to Birkenhead. For a party which prides itself as being the party of planning, this is thoroughly bad planning.
The final objection is that there is at the moment a natural boundary along


the canal, which will have to be bridged at vast expense if this new town is built. It is not too late for the Minister to think again. Nothing has been done since he announced designation last April. I take some heart from the fact that nothing has been done, hoping that this means that he is having second thoughts. There is no urgency about the matter. The Minister has not even set up a development corporation or announced the name of its chairman. There is time to reconsider the inclusion of this area.
I am not saying that Warrington new town as such is not required, nor that the inspector was not right to draw the line he did, taking in part of the Cheshire side. But I ask the Minister to look again at the exclusion of the agricultural land, an exclusion accepted by the inspector and which should have been accepted by the right hon. Gentleman. In that area of the North-West, open countryside is one of our precious assets which we will abandon to our loss.

6.45 p.m.

Mr. Arthur Davidson: I shall not follow the hon. Member for Runcorn (Mr. Carlisle), except to say than I agree with much of what he said early in his speech about North-East Lancashire, that I differ from him in his later remarks. Instead of criticising my right hon. Friend, I shall give him a bouquet—which is something that Ministers are not over-used to. I am sure that my right hon. Friend will receive it graciously.

Mr. William Hamling: Well, it is Christmas.

Mr. Davidson: I was delighted when the Minister announced the Government's proposal to build a new town in the Leyland-Chorley-Preston area, he also said that the needs of North-East Lancashire would be considered—not, I take it, an ancillary to, but as an integral part of this proposal.
I compliment both my right hon. Friend the Minister of Planning and Land and my right hon. Friend the Minister of Housing and Local Government on the close consultations they had had through out with the Lancashire County Council and with local authorities representing North-East Lancashire. As my right hon. Friend knows, I am very concerned that North-East Lancashire should benefit

from the new vitality, movement, vigour and modernity which I hope and trust a new town with a population growth and economic growth will bring to Lancashire as a whole.
I was glad, therefore, when my right hon. Friend detailed, very fairly, the three main problems which have beset North-East Lancashire throughout this century and, indeed, since the Industrial Revolution. I am delighted that he is to take them into consideration as part and parcel of the new town project.
My right hon. Friend mentioned communications, and it is probably right to say that the need to improve them is the main and most pressing problem of the region. I was delighted to hear him say that the Minister of Transport has authorised the building of a road link between the Calder Valley and the M6. Has he anything to say about an outlet eastwards? It has been suggested by the Conference of North-East Lancashire Authorities that a road linking with the Aire Valley in the vicinity of Silsden should be built. This could provide important links with the M6 and the A1. Such links are, in the opinion of many people, vital to the proper economic growth of North-East Lancashire. My right hon. Friend was also right in suggesting that environmental improvement is vital to North-East Lancashire.
I said at Question Time today that it seemed to many of us to be a little incongruous that development areas, which are designated as such mainly on the basis of a high unemployment rate, should be given 85 per cent. grant aid to help with urban renewal and dereliction while other regions, such as North-East Lanoashire, should receive only 50 per cent. I fail to see much connection between the inbred problem of dereliction in one region and unemployment in another. Dereliction is one thing and unemployment is another and if a region suffers, as North-East Lancashire has suffered over the years, from a high proportion of derelict land which needs clearing, it is time for the Government firmly to say—and I hope that this will come from the Hunt Report—that such a region will get 85 per cent. or more grant aid. However, I do not expect a firm commitment from my right hon. Friend on that subject today.
Another problem of the region is migration. North-East Lancashire has suffered year in and year indeed throughout the century from the drift of young people to brighter, more prosperous and alluring regions. I want this drift to stop. Many of us in North-East Lancashire were alarmed at the thought that the new town, far from stopping, might increase the drift. In other words, we feared that people would go from the older towns of the region to the brighter town of Preston, Leyland, Chorley, or whatever the new town is to be called. The need to bring new, modern industry into North-East Lancashire to deal with this migration must therefore be considered as an integral part of the new town project as a whole.
I agree with the consultants who make the point in their report that what are called professional and administrative grades—I do not like the phrase—might be lured to the new town. I hope, there fore, that it will be a positive act of Government policy to decentralise Departments throughout the region so that North-East Lancashire gets its fair share.
It would not be right for me to detain the House by going further into the details of the problems of North-East Lancashire. I could go on at great length about them, and I have done so in the past, but this is a debate about new towns and not about North-East Lancashire. We welcome today's announcement about the needs of North-East Lancashire. We have never been hostile to the idea of a new town provided we had proper safeguards. I hope that Lancashire, particularly North-East Lancashire, as a result, will get something back from the Government and the country. After all, Lancashire has contributed a great deal to its prosperity.

6.53 p.m.

Mr. Jasper More: The more one has to deal with the problems of new towns the more one is driven to the realisation that some of these problems are special to the North of England, and the Midlands. Many of the problems which affect my own new town of Tel ford have already been mentioned and I shall try not to repeat what has been said.
In Shropshire, we have given a genuine welcome to the decision to double the new town which was called Dawley, and we think that it was a great inspiration and a very happy choice to give it the name of Telford. I remind the Minister that the project was originally put to the Salop County Council as having the object primarily of helping to deal with the terrible problems of rehousing in Birmingham, and we accepted it on that basis. It would also be right to say that we accepted it in the hope that it would be a major contribution to the reclamation and raising of the standards of a large area of Shropshire which suffered badly from 200 years of the Industrial Revolution.
It is also right to remind the right hon. Gentleman that the project was launched in what one can now call without over statement the palmy days of 1963; palmy in the sense that in the West Midlands we were then living with over employment and we had every reason to hope that, as population transferred from the industrial conurbations to our part of the world, industry would be only too anxious to move with it. Unfortunately, the position in the West Midlands is now different and we are acutely conscious of the fact that, while we have accepted the challenge of the new town, the challenge is somewhat larger than we expected and possibly even than the Ministry expected.
Is the Minister satisfied that with what we have to face at Telford he has sufficient powers to enable him to carry through the scheme at the speed and on the scale needed? If the new town is to succeed, it is fundamental that we have a movement of industry to the area quickly and on a fairly large scale. The original terms of reference confined the area from which industry was to come to the West Midlands conurbation.
Industry can reasonably ask, if it is to come to Telford, that there should be proper communications between the West Midlands conurbation and Telford itself. This issue has been raised from the out set by the county council. With the then hon. Member for The Wrekin within which constituency part of the new town also lies, I visited the Ministry of Trans port with the chairman of our roads and bridges committee about three years ago when we explained the urgent need to


get these communications right. It is a very sad fact that, with few exceptions, nothing has been done.
The irony of this becomes more acute when it is appreciated that the map of the West Midlands as a whole shows on the east of Birmingham the brand new railway, on which we have spent£150 million, the Ml, the M6 and the M5, which give excellent communications, while on our side of Birmingham almost nothing has been done, except that the rail communication has been allowed appreciably to decline.
The question which one is entitled to put, perhaps not to the Minister, but to the Government, is whether the Minister in charge of the new town policy ought not in a situation of this kind be given some special powers vis-á-vis his colleagues the Minister of Transport and the President of the Board of Trade so that he can say, "The scheme has been accepted by the Government and, if I am to carry it out, I must have certain powers to say what is to be done."
Another consideration which is relevant to the whole problem is that of development area status. When one is trying to start a new town, one needs industry and when one is not in a development area and when the source from which one has to take industry has been defined as the rather small area of the West Midlands conurbation it is frustrating to find that the development areas are permitted and may even be encouraged to go, so to speak, shop ping in the West Midlands conurbation themselves.
I was in Wolverhampton about four months ago when I saw a beautifully staged exhibition from the Wales development area urging the industrialists of Wolverhampton to take their factories to Wales with all the large financial incentives which development areas can offer. Inevitably, one's reaction is to ask, "What about poor old Telford if this sort of thing is allowed?". This should be a Cabinet matter and in a case of this kind, ought not greater powers to be given to the Minister?
Not long ago the Minister was good enough to see the chairman and members of my county council and we discussed certain aspects. We were all very grateful to him, but I was slightly concerned by one thing in his attitude which I may

have misinterpreted when he thought that merely by doubling the scheme we would solve the problem. My view is that while we have accepted the challenge, by doubling the size of the scheme we have doubled the challenge. It is true that by extending the area we bring in some well-established industries, but at the same time, unless the fundamentals I have mentioned are dealt with, all that we will have done is to set ourselves a bigger task.
I want to refer to the two side-effects which are most topical, as a result of the present failure to get industry installed on a large scale. I do not want to over state this, because industry has been brought in on a small scale, and the efforts made by the corporation are highly creditable. I know how hard working it has been. One side effect, and this was the subject upon which we went to see the Minister, was that on the county council and the ratepayers in general. The chairman and members of my county council represented to the Minister the serious position that could result for the ratepayers if the flow of population into the new town did not match up with the expenditure on the services which the county council is statutorily obliged to provide.
On Tuesday, there was a ceremonial handing over of the 1,000th house in Telford. It is a matter of some concern that there are several hundred houses not occupied. What also concerns the county council is that a number of houses which are occupied are occupied by those who were already Shropshire ratepayers, be cause the county does not benefit except by the influx of outside population. It was put to the Minister that it would be only fair that some formula should be worked out by which the county could have a financial guarantee against loss.
The whole problem would be solved if industry would move in in a big way and bring population with it. That might happen any day, but this project has been going for five years and it has not yet happened. This is the situation now facing us. Without knowing the exact stage that may have been reached in negotiations between the Ministry and the county council, I would ask the right hon. Gentleman to look favourably at what was asked of him during our interview.
The other matter is the position of those who are already occupiers and tenants. On the whole, everyone is pleased with the houses. Some people say that they look rather odd from the outside, but anything that is new looks old. I have visited a great many inside, and I agree that they are good. The hard fact is that the rents are high and most people are paying something in the region of£5 or£6 a week. Here we have the same difficulty to which other hon. Members have referred, that these rents are entirely out of line not only with the regular level of wages in the area, but also with comparable rents being paid on housing estates and other houses quite near. This is bound to create difficulties and complaints all round.
Is it absolutely necessary, in an area of this kind, where the wage levels are not as high as, say, in the South-east of England, for houses always to be built to a particular standard? What is always quoted against one is the Parker Morris standard. Has that question really been considered? Can houses be built to a somewhat smaller standard without affecting their quality? The new town of Telford operates now only on the basis of a very generous rent rebate scheme, conscientiously operated by the development corporation in the interests of those living there. I give it full credit for its efforts, but it is not a very satisfactory answer and no one is more aware of this than the tenants.
We have a highly responsible tenants' association which has got down to brass tacks and made a very serious study of all the problems affecting them. They are very conscious that the Minister requires more powers; and that it is unfair, in a sense, that they should expect schools to be provided without any guarantee to the ratepayers that they will be occupied. They are also conscious of the fact that, and this does them credit, however nice it may be to have a rent rebate scheme, it could have a somewhat demoralising influence if the result is to prevent people trying to better themselves by seeking better jobs with higher wages. They are acutely aware of the differences in rental values between new town houses and those adjoining. They think that, in some respects, the new town has un-

favourable financial effects on old-age pensioners.
They are also very much concerned to try to see whether it is possible for them to help themselves by getting a very much larger proportion of female employment. The difficulty is that wives cannot go out to work because there is no one to look after the children. We know that a day nursery would greatly ease the problem, but that would be a responsibility of the county council and it would thus make more acute the problem of the county council. I would ask the Minister to give some attention to these problems. The majority of people in Shropshire feel that the desirability of the project is in no way lessened, and we for our part would like to do everything possible to help the Minister to carry this scheme to a successful conclusion.

7.7 p.m.

Mr. Stan Newens: I welcome the Bill. New towns have proved them selves very well indeed over the last 21 years. They are certainly a most en lightened and sensible method of accommodating overspill population. They pro vide a way of living totally different from that which might be achieved in older towns. I therefore support the decision to establish more new towns, particularly away from London. I also welcome the decision announced today about Lancashire.
It is very important that we should seek to provide more pleasant and attractive new centres for people who cannot be rehoused in the older industrial towns in their part of the country. This obviously cannot be achieved without vast investment of capital by the Government. As a result, the Bill is very necessary. The fact that hon. Members on both sides are supporting this is a clear illustration of the almost universal recognition of the inability of private enterprise to undertake large-scale projects of this type. Here, at least, we must rely upon public enterprise.
As the Minister said, new towns, in the long run, are not necessarily economic liabilities. Many new towns, established over a number of years, are shining examples of the success of public enterprise. My own new town of Harlow is an outstanding case. I would like to pay tribute to the tremendous amount of


work which has been done by the development corporation, the urban district council, the employers, trade unions and many others, to make it such a great success. I have no doubt from my visits to other new towns that this is certainly not a situation confined to Harlow.
If the greatest possible benefits are to be derived, there is a tremendous need for very careful planning. We are now encountering a major difficulty in the provision of employment in new towns, referred to by many hon. Members, particularly the hon. Member for Ludlow (Mr. More).
I wish to refer to a different aspect of this problem from that which the hon. Member for Ludlow posed in the new towns away from the South-East. I refer to the problem presented by the. threat of rationalisation of industry by takeovers and mergers. In Harlow, we had an establishment owned by A.E.I. When G.E.C. took over A.E.I, there was an immediate threat of closure which could have meant very serious consequences in Harlow. Public funds are used to pro vide houses, shops, amenities, schools and all the rest, but we still rely on private enterprise fundamentally to provide the employment. However, everyone recognises that a new town cannot succeed unless there is adequate employment for those who live there.
Decisions on public investment in a new town are taken on a quite different basis from decisions on the provision of employment. If those in charge of an industrial concern feel that they can make more profit by closing a factory in a new town and going elsewhere, that is very good business from the narrow point of view of that industrial concern. On the other hand, it might easily render a considerable amount of public investment in a new town uneconomic and it would be cheaper to subsidise employers to stay in a new town if what they would get by going elsewhere is less than the State would lose. While I am most certainly not advocating this, it well illustrates the great need to consider carefully the problem of the provision of employment.
The Government must take much greater care in future to provide and to safeguard employment in new towns, particularly when there is the risk of take overs. I favour the public ownership of

monopolies, but, if we agree to differ on that proposition, I hope that there will be widespread support for more power and initiative by the Government to pro vide industry and safeguard jobs for those who go to live in new towns.
There is a considerable lack of proper co-ordination of planning decisions at the top. This applies particularly to the provision of employment opportunities near the new homes. I recognise the problem of new towns alongside development areas referred to by the hon. Member for Ludlow, but the older established new towns in what are generally recognised to be more prosperous areas some times suffer when new industries are prevented from going to them or when existing industry which wishes to expand is prevented from doing so.
I have never concealed my belief in public enterprise, but I pay tribute to many industrial employers who have gone to the new towns, and particularly those whom I know so well in Harlow. Employers in the new towns around the London area have an organisation which only a few weeks ago met Members of Parliament in the House and all of us who were able to go along to the meeting were impressed by the fund of experience which they brought to the discussions. Not only these employers, but trade unionists and everybody else concerned have a right to be informed of future planning policy which will enable them to plan industrial development in the new towns on which people's jobs depend.
I wish to refer to the way in which decisions are sometimes indefinitely postponed, and particularly to the expansion of Harlow. This was mooted before the 1964 General Election, but we are still awaiting a decision. We are faced with a policy of drift. I am well aware that the question of Stansted and the possibility that it will, after all, much as I should regret it, be decided to site the third London Airport at Stansted, is linked with this. But it is totally unacceptable that people in new towns should be denied the information that they need to plan the development of that town and the industries in it.
I deplore strongly the idea that Harlow should become a dormitory for the labour employed at Stansted. But, whatever occurs, the employers, trade unions, the development corporation and the urban


district council, not to speak of the Member of Parliament, should be informed about plans, even if they are only contingency plans. At present there is a regrettable dearth of information.
If employment opportunities are in adequate, a new town cannot live. The hon. Members for Runcorn (Mr. Carlisle) and Ludlow referred to the problem of high rents. This is not restricted to the North-West. It applies also in what are regarded as the more prosperous areas—for example, in Harlow. I do not know how a family where the wife is not able to go out to work because she has young children, and whose husband is in the lower-paid category, can live adequately when faced with the sort of rents which people are being asked to pay in the new towns.
More owner-occupation is advocated in the recently published Cullingworth Report. I have nothing against owner-occupation. I am buying my own property. But in Harlow—and I know that this is true in other new towns—many houses which were built for sale are empty and have been empty for a very long time. Many workers cannot afford to pay the rents, let alone the mortgage repayments. It is necessary that we should provide for the housing needs of people. That must be the first priority: to provide rented accommodation rather than accommodation for sale. Many of the second generation local people in the new towns will become very bitter if they find that houses are offered for sale which they cannot afford to purchase, or for which they cannot obtain mortgages while people from outside are able to do so.
The problem of rents and of selling houses must be looked at very carefully in the light of the basic needs of the people. I am very unhappy about those who take the academic view that we can merely expand owner-occupation without considering the needs of the people who have to be housed.
To turn briefly to another subject, there is a need in all this for much greater co-ordination between Government Departments. If we look at the present situation, new towns as such are dealt with by the Ministry of Housing and Local Government. Communications, in the shape of the telephone, are the

responsibility of the Postmaster-General, while roads are dealt with by the Minis try of Transport. For industrial development certificates and industrial development, the Board of Trade comes in. When we are worried about schools, it is the Department of Education and Science, while hospitals and health centres, with which many of us are concerned are the responsibility of the Ministry of Health, now the Ministry of Health and Social Security. When one deals with the problems of various industries, nationalised industries and private enterprise are involved.
In my view, it is not surprising that many difficulties arise from uneven development. It is a tribute to people at all levels that the difficulties in this rather chaotic state of affairs are not consider ably greater.
There is need for much more co-ordination about the creation of the infra structure in the new towns. I cite the example of my own new town of Harlow the problem of road communications and the development of the M11. The men who first discussed the link with Harlow for the M11 have been wondering whether their grandchildren would live to see it completed. Despite the infinite number of letters which have been writ ten and all the rest, although we had a recent announcement on this subject, many of us have become very concerned about the inordinate delay which has taken place.
I hope that although we seem now to have passed another post on the way to getting the M11 to the Harlow area, my right hon. Friend the Minister will take note of the fact that it is important not only from the general transport stand point but also for the life of the new town that this road should be built as speedily as possible.
One other issue which I wish to mention is the question of the future owner ship of assets and the control of new towns. I remain an unashamed and constant advocate of handing over to the local authorities. I believe that in this day and age, when so many people at the grass roots are concerned about the need to control their own lives, when participation has been become very much an "in" word, it is even more necessary that


we should recognise the need to transfer control to the local authorities.
Hon. Members opposite may have been concerned at one stage that all new town local authorities were likely to be con trolled by friends of those of us who sit on these benches. I very much regret to say that that is not exactly the case at the present time. I am glad to say that it still is so at Harlow, and I believe that it will remain so.
At the same time, all hon. Members should put aside partisan political ideas and recognise that there is tremendous need to decentralise decisions which can be decentralised. In this respect, it is extremely desirable that the control and ownership of these assets should be placed in the hands of local authorities, whatever their political colour.
I am not saying that every decision should be made at that level—one knows that local authorities in any area have to go to the Minister for all sorts of decisions—but we should look back to the original intentions of the people who founded this great development, like Lord Reith and Lord Silkin, and see that the assets are transferred to the local authorities. I would mention to my right hon. Friend the Minister that this is very much Labour Party policy as accepted by the Labour Party Conference.
Until that glorious day dawns when the assets are transferred, there is need for more local appointments on development corporations. We want to get the greatest possible local contact here. This is tremendously important. When travelling round and speaking to people in the new towns, I find that many of them are concerned about the need for greater sensitivity to this point at Ministerial level.
With those remarks—and I apologise that I have spoken rather longer than I intended—I welcome the Bill. It is very desirable that we should go ahead with the new town movement and I believe that in the years to come, many people who live in the new towns will recognise the wisdom of the present Government in going ahead with their very great plan of social development.

7.26 p.m.

Mr. Arthur Jones (Northants, South): I am glad to have the opportunity of following the hon. Member for Epping (Mr. Newens) and I would like to deal

briefly with two of the points he has raised. The first is the necessity for economic planning to be kept in step with land use planning. It is in circumstances in which these get out of phase that one gets a shortfall of jobs in new towns particularly.
I had that experience in the overspill scheme in Daventry, in my constituency, where residents came from the Birmingham area but there were insufficient jobs to provide employment. As a result, we have several hundred houses standing empty awaiting employment. It has been necessary for the authorities concerned to see the President of the Board of Trade and I think that there is now recognition of the difficulties which need to be over come in the availability of the necessary industrial development certificates.
The second point is to remind the hon. Member of the meeting which we had in his constituency on a Sunday about two years ago when the Minister of Public Building and Works was present. A significant factor which came to light that Sunday was that if the local authority—the Harlow Urban District Council—were to take over the new town's assets, its treasurer told us that it would not need to levy a rate; the income would be enough to excuse the residents from a rate precept of any sort. I am sure, therefore, that when the hon. Member speaks so vehemently in support of his case, he would be prepared to add a qualification to the suggestion that new town assets should be completely taken over by the local authority.

Mr. Newens: I am grateful to the hon. Member for the opportunity to say that I believe that the new towns should be made to recognise their responsibility to the country as a whole. I do not think that it would be fair if they were merely to use whatever profits they were able to make for their exclusive benefit locally. I quite agree that in this respect there should be a suitable means of sharing out over the country as a whole. That does not, however, detract from my point about handing over their assets.

Mr. Jones: I am sure that there would be a qualification with regard to the financial arrangement which would be required.
I turn now to the theme of the Minister in setting out for us the historical sequence


of the new towns so far and the future prospects in the shape of the substantial announcements which we have had in recent weeks concerning various new towns.
I recognise the simplicity of providing homes in a suitable environment with the necessary jobs to go with them in the concept of new town development. The contrast is the simplified procedures that are available there and the difficulties that one has in providing residential development elsewhere in terms of avail ability of land, the limited areas that could be made available by town extensions, village extensions and the demands on the green belts.
Of course, as a direct result of planning policies by the planning authorities, with the release of land in only limited amounts, we get the unfavourable circumstances of high land values being maintained, and I hope that this is a matter which he and his right hon. Friends may find an opportunity to turn to, to try to reduce the cost of land. It is true to say that the major cost in houses lies in the cost of land. I am assured by a substantial contractor in the private sector of housing that only 28 per cent. of the cost of a house is for materials, that the other 72 per cent. is made up of high land costs, the inevitable professional charges involved in acquisition and planning procedures, and so on, which are costly and time-consuming in them selves, and the labour costs. I think that the right hon. Gentleman will agree that that is a very significant figure.
The alternative is the expansion of the new town procedures and major over spill development schemes, such as I have at Daventry in my constituency. Hither to, almost entirely, these schemes have been based on the public sector of housing. I know that areas of land are made available for private development, as the hon. Member for Epping mentioned, but in the main they are developed by the public sector.
I ask the right hon. Gentleman to turn his mind to the concept of a private enterprise new town. The hon. Member for Epping will contest this. He says new towns can only be successful with public enterprise. I ask him to consider Letchworth Garden City and Welwyn Garden City, which were the two prime concep-

tions of the whole scheme of new town development. They have been, and were from the outset, I understand, essentially successful both in financial and social terms. Could we not, perhaps, consider, when the next great decision has to be taken on the question of a new town and its designation, a planning competition among architects generally, the Government to choose and decide the best designated area and the most suitable in terms of the country, and look afresh at the physical, economic and social planning considerations in the context of private development?

Mr. Eldon Griffiths: Perhaps my hon. Friend is aware that at Newmarket, in my constituency, a recent decision was taken not to have a large overspill programme? This does not mean new town expansion. On the contrary, a private firm has been brought in, and this will achieve a number of houses exactly in the way my hon. Friend suggests.

Mr. Jones: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. I have been to that development and have looked at the roads and the public services which have already been installed. I think that it is in the general form of estate development, added, as it is, to the northern part of Newmarket. I am thinking of something broader altogether, and hope to come to some of the financial considerations. I recognise, in the context of the Bill, that there is a great demand for capital funds on the public purse in respect of the present new town procedures. This and any Government would, perhaps, welcome an opportunity to get private capital into a new town.
I hope that we shall see a new town conception different again from those we have seen in the post-war period. I have looked at many of them. I recognise the advantages which some have against others—Cumbernauld, a completely new conception, the conception of a new town added to an old; and a new town altogether such as we have at Stevenage.
I am confident that private capital can be made available, and I think that we should ensure a greater variety of tenure among residents. This is a point which was expressed, also, by the hon. Member for Epping. I am sure that if there were a necessity for them there should be


reasonably rented properties; the private developer could face giving for a time a subsidy on them, raised from commercial and industrial schemes, which would pro vide employment. This would be a simple financial exercise. I am sure that the private developer would not want to get into the situation we find in the new towns now, of housing and industrial development getting out of phase.
This would require the necessary cooperation from the various Government Departments concerned. However, I am confident that a properly planned and phased development could ensure a financial return acceptable to the private sector and would in this way ensure the proper use of resources.
I am not at all satisfied that a proper use of resources is reflected in the figures we have about new towns. I take the right hon. Gentleman's assurance that they are profitable in the long run. As he said, good business practice is followed in the new towns. I cannot think that a good business practitioner, if I may so put it, would be satisfied with the figures which we have before us. I quote from the Progress Report, No. 24, of January. 1967, of the Department of Economic Affairs. It refers to the new towns in a paragraph headed, "A profit able investment" and it says:
Deficits on revenue account are inevitable until remunerative development begins to bear fruit, and, taking all the development corporations together, there is still an overall deficit. However, many of the earlier established development corporations now show an annual revenue surplus. Taken together, the 17 new towns in England and Wales showed a net revenue surplus of over£900,000 in 1965–66; excluding the five new towns designated since 1961 where development is still in its early stages, the 12 well-established new towns showed a surplus of nearly£1¼ million.
The return referred to of£900,000 in 1965–66 is on a capital investment of no less than£346 million, which shows a return on capital employed of 0·3 per cent., and I cannot think that that is a wise use of resources. We would need to do a very close cost-benefit analysis and show a lot more advantages else where before we could say that proper financial disciplines had been exercised.
Professor Anthony West, of the College of Estate Management, is, I understand, engaged in costing new town development schemes. He maintains that the profit

and loss basis of new towns is unrealistic. Were they to be subjected to the same scrutiny as private companies, the scale of losses would become apparent. The new town development corporations enjoy indirect assistance and concealed subsidies which are not included in the department's figures which I have read out. They enjoyed compulsory purchase powers up to 1959 under the 1947 code, which enabled them to acquire land at existing use value, which is but a fraction of today's value paid by private developers. I wonder what the figure of the total assets, which were well over£340 million, would be today if all the properties were revalued, particularly the commercial and industrial properties. What sort of return then would the new towns show on the capital invested?
Special exemptions are enjoyed by new towns in relation to the Rent Acts and the advance payments for roads and public works which are often made to local authorities. They are exempted from the betterment levy and from the Leasehold Reform Acts. They have powers to extinguish rights of way and easements, and to borrow at approximately half the market rate of interest. They enjoy grants from the Government and from local authorities. We can therefore say that new towns are cocooned in a suffocating featherbed of statutory protection. Yet they show only this extremely meagre return on the tremendous capital investment made by the country.
We are asked tonight to agree to a further substantial sum, and in that con text I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether he and his colleagues will give thought to the possibility of a new town being put out to a private developer or a consortium of private developers. My view is that a private enterprise new town could succeed, and I hope that it will not be ruled out. There would be no demand upon the public purse for subsidies or for capital. There would be better social variety in the co-owner ship of properties and the housing associations, with houses for owner-occupation and for renting. Such a scheme would employ the initiatives and skills in the private sector and, above all, it would bring a lively and new approach to what is recognised, as the Minister said, as a very successful development stemming from Letchworth and Welwyn.
Can we not break new ground yet again in this vital matter?

7.43 p.m.

Mr. Eric Moonman: I begin by paying a tribute to my right hon. Friend's predecessor, who was for a considerable time responsible in the Ministry for new towns. Those of us who have had associations with him will have been impressed by his great interest in and deep knowledge of new towns. Some of us may have disagreements, but this is inevitable when so many of us feel equally deeply about the problems of the various aspects of new town life reflected by many of the comments in the debate tonight.
The knowledge and intelligence of the hon. Member for Widnes (Mr. MacColl) on the subject has never been doubted, or his willingness to visit new towns. We shall miss him, and we wish him well in his new work. By the same token, we hope to see my right hon. Friend shortly visiting the new towns, doing the circuit, and we hope that he will also be able to meet the various bodies which have been referred to in the debate.
New towns are not only the concern of the development corporations and the local authorities; they are the concern also of the multiplicity of voluntary organisations which play such an important part in the life and quality of the new towns.
New towns are a success, and I hope that my right hon. Friend will take every possible occasion for saying this in a more forthright manner than has been done in the past. The new town concept has made an impact throughout the world. With populations centring on the already pressed cities, national guidance on homes and jobs becomes more urgent.
The hon. Member for Northants, South (Mr. Arthur Jones) has suggested one approach to this, but it seems to me that private organisations have not always been enthusiastic to go into what is very big business. I am well aware of the skill and devotion of those who established Letchworth and Welwyn Garden City, but the scale of the projected new town in Lancashire involves such a demand on resources that I doubt whether private industry would wish to join forces to this end. We have moved enormously in the last 40 or 50 years,

and the general complexity of planning means that the backing and not, per haps, the hostility of a Government machine is necessary.
If any hon. Members have been able to study in detail the Report on the Ownership and Management of Housing in the New Towns, which was published a few days ago, they have done extremely well. There are two points on which I wish to comment. Great emphasis is placed in the report on the normality of new towns. Normality seems to be related to having more owner-occupiers. I resent this in the same way as my hon. Friend the Member for Epping (Mr. Newens) resents it. Normality is not just about ownership. It concerns the social environment, the facilities and the removal of tensions by the provision of jobs for people who wish to stay in the new towns.
In Basildon, over 100 houses were scheduled for sale but not taken up for a considerable period. As the result of strong initiative by the general manager of the new town, and by one or two of us, generous mortgages were eventually made available and the houses were taken up, but this is a great problem. There was a wastage of assets and there was hostility from people in the new town who wished to see their children accommodated, and who had to wait for a long time on the local authority list. The Report is looking at normality in a way which is out of line with the experience of many hon. Members who either live or work in a new town.
Of course, all is not perfect. One way in which a greater degree of efficiency could be established is the way in which decisions are made on the ultimate transfer of ownership. The scale of new town operations is shown by the provision in the Bill of£300 million. We are concerned with the finance when the transfer to the local authority takes place. I bitterly regret that the Queen's Speech contained no reference to the transfer of assets, although this matter was strongly supported in the Labour Party conference and in various committees and consultative bodies. My right hon. Friend ought to give attention to the transfer to the local authority, with provision for the phased transfer, where desirable, on the basis of the local authority assuming responsibility for the outstanding loan


debt on the same terms as apply to the development corporation—receiving the same measure of annual subsidies, grants and contributions and the balance of the repairs fund.
There is one difficulty which is stressed in the Report—and this is one of the few parts of the Report which I have so far read, and I feel that it is well worth our attention. The Report points out that the transfer of assets and the transfer of responsibility for housing to the local authority raises a difficulty about restricting the inflow of population if the local authority assumes control of all houses. It states:
The first point to make is that if development corporation houses were transferred to local authorities, 'council houses' would then constitute from about two-fifths to nearly all of the local housing stock. In some towns the local authorities would be responsible for virtually all the houses in their areas. In these towns there would be little scope for other tenures to meet the needs of migrant workers. Thus, if in coming workers were not housed by the local authority, there would be a serious deterrent to new labour coming into the area.
This is one of the problems with which we have to be able to deal. Once we have established a single authority for housing, there must be some continuing facility whereby new towns which attract skilled workers will provide them with accommodation. They certainly do not want to buy their own houses. This is a practical problem. It may not be possible for my right hon. Friend to deal with it in his reply this evening, but I suggest that much more attention should be given to the point.
There is also a social problem in the new town which is worthy of note. I am not now referring to the "new town blues" which have been mentioned in previous debate. The mature new towns such as Basildon have built civic centres, community centres, swimming pools and other good decreational facilities. No one who has lived in or within the authority of a new town, as I do, will minimise the importance of such basic facilities. The social environment is being improved to catch up with the original uncertain "bricks-and-mortar" philosophy which brought people to the new towns for jobs and houses.
There is, however, a uniqueness and a vitality in a new town which carries within it certain problems of personal

relations. I am not in favour of research projects for their own sake for we have heard of several matters of new town life being studied. There is a need for fairly systematic studies of a sociological kind to look at the whole question of family environment. Already, there has been the Wilmot and Young study of the problem of people moving from a traditional area of Bethnal Green. It would be interesting if the study were taken now, several years later, in the new town itself. The lack of supporting families of the older generation and the drift from family support has brought tensions and in some cases—I emphasise, some cases—conflicts in husband-wife relationships.
I can speak only for my own advice centre, held regularly in my constituency, but the largest number of cases which I hear there on domestic issues are about such tensions which have grown up. I have taken this further and I hope that a post-graduate student will do some work in the summer on these specific problems arising from lack of supporting families and the fact that "Mum" is not in the nearby area.
The point is that there is no senior member of the family to provide the immediate piece of information and advice and this can cause some aggravation and worry. I do not suggest that this is a major social problem, and I am sure that it is not confined to Basildon, as I have discovered in discussions which I have had with hon. Members from other new towns. Support should be given to a research project to examine in a quantitative way the personal and social problems of new town life.
We have different stages of new towns. Many comments which have been made by hon. Members deal with matters which we have had to work through in the mature new towns Harlow and Basil don. Let us look at the social environment in terms of what it means for youngsters. When they go into new towns, such youngsters drift from the family—even though the mature new towns now have buildings of social purpose. If we undertake this study we may be able to answer some of the problems which will arise when the new, new towns have become more matured.
If we are to deal with specific problems, there is the difficulty of co-ordinating decision making. For example, in


Basildon we have still to get a central railway station. There is a most curious situation in which we have a railway station on either side of the town. Apparently the cunning philosophy be hind this decision is the assumption that if there were a central railway station it would defeat the purposes of the new town because people would commute to London.
I have never been able to understand the logic. What it means is that the distance between the two railway stations is about five miles, so that those who want to get into London will certainly go, despite considerable inconvenience, while, at the same time, there is a great problem of communications not only for people who live in the town, but for local industry, too. It is an absurd situation.
In trying to track down what happened, one finds that there is a lack of co-ordination. It is a situation in which British Railways, the Ministry of Trans port, the development corporation and the local authority neatly pass the responsibility one to the other. One could argue that this ties in with the whole town centre complex, but it has gone on far too long, and in these periods of life of a new town we have to recognise that there will be larger isues than those about local drainage, sewerage and so on. There will be crucial decisions affecting the communication of the new town. Co ordination of decision-making is a subject on which I should like to see set up a much more broadly based committee than the liaison committee introduced by my right hon. Friend's predecessor.
A critical isue which has now arisen and will continue to arise in the last quarter of the century is how to involve the development corporation with the people of the town. We have thought about this in Basildon. Clearly, there is no one answer. Possibly one might have a watch committee, not in any critical sense, but rather to provide a meeting which the town folk would be able to attend, and which would meet once a quarter. It would look at the work, the policy and the plans of the development corporation. It would be expected that an officer of the development corporation, preferably the general manager, would talk about his intended projects. This is one way to improve communications.
Any other suggestions along these lines which hon. Members make would arouse a good deal of interest in Basildon.
Another possibility is to have much greater involvement locally on the development corporation board, and I fully support the views that have been expressed on this subject. This is a controversial matter. I would like to see the fee given to members of£500 dropped. We must also get better quality local personalities on the development corporation. One of the great values of the development corporation board is that it must be truly local. That would help to prepare the way for the time when the local authority will assume greater control in the town.
I know that my right hon. Friend and his predecessor worked very hard to try to put people on the development corporation board who were identified with the local authority. I know that they will also argue that there are people from the vicinity on the boards. But I believe that the balance in the composition is wrong. Only a few months ago, in the case of Basildon, there was brought in a representative of the G.L.C. I am sure that he is a perfectly honourable man, but he has had to come all the way from Hammersmith and, as he admits, he will be making virtually his first visit to a new town to serve on a development corporation board. I am not sure whose interest he is serving. I very much doubt where whether he can serve the interests and problems of the new town in the short term.
In trying to meet some of the problems of the new towns before they arise as serious obligations, my right hon. Friend would do well to look at the structure of the corporation board. We want a balanced board. We want men of experience of industrial, trade union and commercial life. We also want people who are well known in the locality. But we find it difficult to justify putting on the board people who must travel 55 miles or so and who cannot be justified on appointment on industrial grounds either.
This is a highly controversial matter and I am using diplomatic language about it. In my constituency they would say that it is dynamite. They feel that there will be an explosion—and it is not


necessarily the Member of Parliament who will go up in smoke.
I turn to the question of rents. I urge my right hon. Friend to think again about the way in which the whole question of rents has been dealt with during the last few months. The criteria for rent increases applying to new towns are associated with the Prices and Incomes Board's Report on rents. I believe that there are important differences and that the criteria which should be established for new towns should be different from that applying to other cities and towns in Britain. I have had correspondence with my right hon. Friend on this subject and I am grateful to him for allowing me to refer to it.
Many of the difficulties which we have faced in the new towns in connection with exorbitant rents—there have been severe increases in the last few months—have arisen from the fact that people coming to live in new towns believe that they have come there for purposes other than merely moving from one part of London to another. They believe that they are coming to get jobs. In many respects they make sacrifices in moving, but one must admit that there are benefits as well. There is a uniqueness about living in a new town, although this shows up the difficulties that arise, particularly from high rents.
An hon. Member spoke earlier of the rent figure applying to the North-West. I assure the House that the figure in. for example, Basildon is far in excess of that. This problem must be examined carefully and I plead with the Minister to consider this question of associating new town rents with the rents applying in other parts of the country. He would meet with a great deal of support from my hon. Friends and I if he were pre pared to consider referring new town rent increases directly to the Prices and Incomes Board. Such a step would establish once and for all that there is some thing different and unique about new towns.
I do not accept the philosophy that new towns are "normal". They may become normal eventually, but they must be given further support before that can happen. The continued success of new towns will depend increasingly on how well friendship and co-ordination exist among the Ministry, the authority or

corporation, the local council and the inhabitants.
There is no doubt that the people of Basildon and some of the other more mature new towns have a great vitality. They bring with them the spirit and enthusiasm of, for example, East London, and that is in many respects half way towards meeting the problems which one faces in a new town. We have a right to expect a close identification with this problem on the part of my right hon. Friend. We would like to see a recognition of the fact that the unique problems of new towns should be dealt with with the same kind of unique remedies from him.

8.3 p.m.

Mr. James Dance: The hon. Member for Billericay (Mr. Moon-man) will, I hope, forgive me if I do not comment on many of the topics he raised in his speech. The debate has continued for some time and I wish to be brief.
We all agree that the problems of new towns are varied and are of a non-party character. I thank the hon. Member for Epping (Mr. Newens) and my hon. Friend the Member for Hemel Hempstead (Mr. Allason) for the help they have given in enabling us to air these problems, particularly since the difficulties which face new towns are not always the same as those which face towns and cities generally. I also thank the Parliamentary Secretary for the civil way in which he has listened to our debates on this subject.
The problems which face new towns cannot be appreciated by those who are not affected by them and are not aware of exactly what is involved in living in these areas. They are entirely different from the problems affecting any other type of development that has gone on in this country. Indeed, many people connected with new towns cannot always appreciate each others problems because of the difficulties confronting different new towns.
I wish to refer in particular to the infrastructure of new towns. When one has a completely new town which has probably developed from a village or very small town, the question of communication within the town does not present a large problem. However, with a town like Redditch, which already has a population of between 25,000 and 30,000 and many old buildings and narrow roads,


the whole question of communication within the town—I am not referring to the question of communication to and from it—presents many problems.
I have in the past said—I am sure that I am right about this—that if we are to have a happy community, with the old and the new blending together, there must be good communications within a town. That is why I hope that the Minister will accept that much of the money which is required for new towns must be spent on communications.
The new town of Redditch has been granted money to build three new schools, and that is excellent. I am told, however, that that whole allocation for school building—that is, for Worcester County Council—has now been absorbed. It should be remembered that in the old part of Redditch there are bad schools with outside sanitation, classrooms too small for the number of children attending them and no common rooms for the teachers.
Unless this problem is tackled, ill feeling will be generated between the old and new parts of the town. If in future Redditch is to be a happy town, there must be the closest possible integration between the old and the new. This will not happen if people who live in the older part of the town say, "Everything is going to the new town and we are getting nothing".
The Minister and hon Members generally must be fed up hearing me talking about the need for adequate hospital facilities in Redditch. The complication of the old part of the town being com pared with the new arises in this connection, too. The old part of the town has a hospital, although it contains only 30 beds. One is told, "You have a hospital. What are you worrying about?" For many years the existing hospital has been inadequate for the demands of Red ditch as it was previously. It is now completly inadequate to meet the demands of Redditch as a whole, with the new town, particularly as more houses are built and as the population increases.
I pay tribute to the Minister for the civil way in which he has listened to my pleas about this matter. However, there are many difficulties still to be ironed out. I also thank the Parliamentary Secretary, the hon. Member for Litchfield

and Tamworth (Mr. Snow) for having agreed to receive a deputation of a petition containing 30,000 signatures. He has listened to our problems. I hope that he will now be able to take some action.
The question of high rents has been raised by several hon. Members. They are desperately high in my new town. The reason is obvious; because new towns generally have no bank of cheaper houses with which to offset the cost of new houses. I recently obtained some figures which show that the average rent in the new town of Redditch is£4 15s. a week, to which must be added 13s. for a garage—most of the houses have garages—plus£1 13s. for rates and£1 for central heating. This means rents of more than£6 10s. This does not take into account the£3 subsidy which the new town is getting. It means that the average rent is£9 10s., in real terms. In addition, many people living in new towns which are unable to attract new industry—if I.D.C.s are not granted—must pay perhaps£3 10s. to commute weekly to and from, say, Birmingham.
It just is not a runner. One of the great fears in the minds of my new town development corporation is that it will have these houses—and very nice houses they are—but will not be able to let them, because it is not the higher paid skilled worker who is being moved from Birmingham, but more likely the lower-paid worker, who just cannot afford these rents. I therefore hope that when allocating some of the extra money provided by the Bill the right hon. Gentleman will consider giving new towns a further subsidy, at least until these new towns are, perhaps, absorbed by the old u.d.c.s, and they can charge a balanced rent. People just cannot afford the present rents.
I know that it is Government policy, and most people would think it wise policy, to give I.D.C.'s in areas of high unemployment, but special consideration should be given to the new towns, which also have their own problems. I hope that I.D.C.s will be granted to the new towns, because in Redditch alone, as I checked the other day, 1,006 new houses are being completed each year, so we need about 2,000 new jobs. Unless people are to commute to and from Birmingham those jobs must be created on the spot by industry. Birmingham industrialists are prepared to go to Redditch


provided they can get a certificate to build their factories. Factories are going up, but rot nearly fast enough, nor are they large enough to cope with the problem which will be increasingly with us as the populations of the new towns—and I refer particularly to Redditch—in crease.
I welcome the Bill. In the long run, its provisions will be at no cost to the taxpayer, as the money is to be in the form of a loan. I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will see that the money is allocated in the wisest way, so that the new towns will be as happy and successful as I hope they will be.

8.13 p.m.

Mr. Michael McGuire: Most hon. Members who have new towns in their constituencies will echo most of the sentiments so far expressed in the debate. The hon. Member for Broms-grove (Mr. Dance) has spoken eloquently of the many problems associated with the new towns, particularly when a new town is grafted on to an old town.
When, on 28th October, 1966, we debated the subject of new towns, I mentioned many of the problems associated with Skelmersdale, in my constituency, such as the housing programme, rents and recreational and leisure facilities. I believe I also spoke of representation on the local development board, a matter that has been referred to by my hon. Friends the Members for Billericay (Mr. Moonman) and for Epping (Mr. Newens).
When I spoke of housing I was mildly castigated by the Minister of Public Building and Works. I said that I was not—nor am I now—a great admirer or advocate of industrialised building, and I gave my reasons. It is good when a man can prove himself to be a prophet in his own time. I said that from my knowledge of Skelmersdale I was apprehensive of its programme of industrialised building. I am at once glad to say and sad to say that my worst fears have been justified.
The programme of industrialised building at Skelmersdale has been curtailed by about 40 per cent. In its annual report to the Minister, the development corporation says, very diplomatically, as corporations have to be when dealing with Governments, that it has been very disappointed that promise of the industrialised building contractors did not match

the performance, and that in a period of 24 months very few houses have been handed over. That must have meant a great loss to the corporation, which I hope will not be placed against its revenues, because it needs all the help it can get.
Rents are a problem in all new towns, because there is no cushion of older corporation house rents to mitigate some of the harsher effects of the economic cost of the new houses. That is well known. When the Government order a new town to be built, they will the means so they should will the end. It is no good talking about rents having to balance. I know that considerable assistance is given, but the trouble is that it is always given on the basis of, "We are doing you a great favour, and some time we will have to cut off this assistance." They dare not cut it off, nor should it be cut off, because when a new town is set up people have to be housed at considerable expense for a great number of years.
I believe that the Government should treat this matter, as I suggested in 1966, on the basis of comparability with houses controlled by nearby local authorities. That is a reasonable, if rough and ready test. If, in Skelmersdale, for instance, the corporation examine the rents being charged in the county boroughs which surround the new town, and then says that that is about the average, it is a reasonable basis. I believe that the development corporation is working on that basis.

Mr. Eldon Griffiths: Does the hon. Gentleman say that the rent for each individual family in Skelmersdale should be comparable with rents paid by individual families in near by local authorities, or does he say that what might be called the global or average level should be equated?

Mr. McGuire: I realise that some of the older houses have not modern facilities and that we cannot say because one house has the same accommodation as another therefore it is comparable. On average, taking like with like, the amenities should be the same. Skelmersdale Development Corporation introduced a rent rebate scheme. It met with a little opposition, probably because it was not properly explained or there may have been a problem in communications,


but it has since been modified and new forms with model rules have been laid down by the Government for such schemes.
Another problem is in recreation and leisure facilities. Here the Government—I suppose the same would apply when the Conservatives were in office—are in danger of spoiling the ship for a ha'porth of tar. It is always difficult to synchronise at the right time the provision of houses, shops, hospitals, schools and so on. We realise that this will always be a problem, but not enough emphasis is laid on the quality of life apart from the social services and educational facilities.
In the debate on 28th October, 1966, the then Minister of Public Building and Works said that the Government had looked at the question of allowances and considered£4 per head was inadequate. They hoped to increase the amount. He said that he thought that a matter for joint enterprise by the old-established urban district council and the new development corporation. That will never be a happy marriage because there is not enough money available in the old town. The Minister must increase the amount and must emphasise that development corporations should go ahead in concentrating on better leisure and recreational facilities for people in new towns. That is certainly the case in Skelmersdale.
Another problem hinges on the failure of the industrialised building system in Skelmersdale. There is a new shopping centre, but there will not be enough people to benefit. Lack of competitive shopping facilities add to the economic difficulties in any new town, certainly in mine. The Government in willing the end should will the means. When people in a new town complain that competitive facilities do not exist, the Government, through the development corporation, should subsidise shopowners who are willing to go there but who say that there is not a sufficient volume of trade. In the transitional period shopping facilities should be provided, and if the shop owners say that they are not competitive some subsidy should be offered, perhaps by not enforcing payment of rates.
In the Skelmersdale Development Corporation Annual Report, reference is

made to the profits of the new town. Referring to the profitability of building factories to be leased to industrialists, the Report says much the same as hon. Members who have spoken in this debate have said about the awkwardness of I.D.C. approvals and development status. We have development status in Skelmersdale, but this militates against employers establishing premises there because they prefer to build their own premises. The development corporation, viewing this as a growing and profitable side of its business, would like to participate more in building factories and leasing them. I have no doubt that when my right hon. Friend visits Skelmersdale on 2nd January after the Christmas festivities, when he is light of step and clear of mind, the development corporation will emphasise the need for it to be allowed to participate more fully in this profitable business as the profits which would accrue would help to alleviate some of the problems in balancing housing revenues.
On the question of representation, my hon. Friend the Member for Billericay (Mr. Moonman) instanced the case of a member of a development corporation whose first visit to a new town was when he took his seat on the board. Representation is very much out of balance, be cause decisions taken by a development corporation are a legacy which it will hand on to whatever authority succeeds it. It is suggested that there should be two local people on the board and seven others who know very little, if anything, about feeling in the new town area. I can understand the Government wanting industrialists on such a board, but they could be local industrialists. There seems to be a fixation of an idea that there should be only two genuine local members. Either the numbers should be increased, or it could be pointed out that there is not an absolute law about having only two local people and seven outsiders on the board.
There is a big problem in communications. It is no good saying that when the local authority and the development corporation get together they can thrash out matters and arrive at a conclusion. More active intelligent local participation will prevent a development corporation coming to a decision which would militate against the best expectation of a new


town in whatever area it is. My right hon. Friend should look at this problem. When the time comes for replacement of members of a board more attention should be paid to local participation. Then those who are appointed would be more in tune with the needs of the people in the area. This would make it a better new town and would give its people that richer, better life which they should expect under a Labour Government.

8.29 p.m.

Mr. Peter Hordern: I hope that the hon. Member for Ince (Mr. McGuire) will forgive me if I do not follow him in his line of argument, be cause his speech showed so clearly his intimate knowledge of his constituency which I, unfortunately, do not share.
We are being asked in the Bill to authorise a further£300 million to the New Towns Commission and to the development corporations. In opening the debate the Minister said that he estimated that this sum should last for three years. My hon. Friend the Member for Northants, South (Mr. Arthur Jones), in his very notable speech, said that the return on the total assets employed by the development corporations and the New Towns Commission was 0·3 per cent. I hope that the Minister when he winds up will say what rate of interest he expects will be charged to the corporations and the Commission on this amount of money. How much of this will be avail able to the Commission, as opposed to the corporations?
I welcome this obvious mark of confidence in the Commission, new-found though it may be, for under the Bill there can be no question now of handing over all the assets of the Commission to local authorities. I welcome the Government's conversion to common sense.
But what are the Government's intentions towards the Commission's housing assets? The former Minister of Housing and Local Government, as Ministers in this Government are prone to do, handed the matter over to a separate body to make a separate inquiry. He commissioned a study on the Ownership and Management of Housing in the New Towns, to be made by the Centre for Urban and Regional Studies, the University of Birmingham.
This Study was produced yesterday. It is one of the most interesting documents to have come my way for some time, for it says that there should be less public ownership of houses in new towns. It says that
the tenure pattern in the new towns should accord closely with the wishes and aspirations of the families who live in them … one clear conclusion which emerges from this study is that policy ought to be directed towards greatly increasing the opportunities for owner-occupation.
It is no good the hon. Member for Billericay (Mr. Moonman) complaining about the Report. What he complains about is the views of those who are asked for their opinions, which the Report merely records. Nowhere is this more marked than in Crawley. Out of a sample of 751 in Crawley, 77 per cent. thought that Commission houses should be offered for sale to tenants and only 9 per cent. thought that they should not be so offered. Of those who would be prepared to consider buying in Crawley, about 70 per cent. would like to buy the homes in which they at present live. The difficulty is that the price which they would like to pay differs markedly from the market value of these houses.
Why can new town families afford to rent the very houses which they cannot afford to buy? The answer lies in the fact that the rented houses benefit from rent policies, subsidies, and the long period of amortisation. All, or a good part of, these benefits should be passed on to house purchasers by one form or another. One method of doing it would be to arrange a system of cheap mortgages specifically for those who are tenants of Commission houses.
The Report says that we must ask whether it is right that a man who bought his house 10 years ago from a building society should be so much better off than his neighbour who has to face the cost of continued rent increases in a Commission house. What we should question is the whole principle of housing subsidies—whether it is right to pay subsidies on dwellings rather than on the needs of households. In my opinion, it is the needs of the households that count.
As the Report says,
… there can be no doubt that if action is to be based on what people want the policy


should be to increase owner-occupation and thereby reduce the size of the public sector.
I agree entirely with that sentiment.
In Crawley the facts are plain. The proportion of owner-occupiers is 23 per cent., against a national average of 42 per cent. What is more, if one takes the proportion in relation to income groups, 61 per cent. of Crawley people would normally expect to own their own homes if they lived in other parts of the country. The Report tells us that in countries in both Western and Eastern Europe as well as the United States it has been shown that housing associations are capable of making a substantial contribution to housing provision and management and that a range of housing associations could be developed in new towns which could meet either general or special needs.
What are the Government's proposals to meet this Report? Do they accept the arguments in it, and, if they do, what special measures will they take to en courage tenants to buy their own houses? I accept the arguments adduced in the Report, and I hope that my party does as well. Incidentally, it is interesting that the majority of those questioned in Crawley thought that the Commission should continue to own houses rather than hand them over to the council.
I have, naturally, concentrated on Crawley as I am its representative in the House, but it seems to me that Crawley represents a real challenge to the Government on both their housing and industrial policies in a much wider sense. Development corporation rents on a three-bedroomed house are about£1 a week higher in Skelmersdale than they are in Crawley, yet it could scarcely be said that incentives are required to attract people to Crawley and my constituency. I do not complain of this situation so far as Crawley is concerned, but it seems a strange policy for the Government to apply.
I emphasise how expensive the development of new towns in development areas has become. My hon. Friend the Member for Cirencester and Tewkesbury (Mr. Ridley) had a Question down today which makes clear that the cost per job to public funds of providing employment in development areas has risen from£1,130 in 1964–65 to£7,770 in 1967–68.
In addition to the extra cost of providing jobs in development areas, one has to take into account the cost of thwarted exports from my constituency and from Crawley in particular. What has to be measured in the context of persuading firms to go to development areas when they wish to expand and the Gvernment's refusal to grant industrial development certificates is the cost of these lost exports. For the immediate reaction to being told that it cannot expand in Crawley is for the firm not to expand at all. Although some firms have expanded into other parts of the country, there are many more which would have expanded had they been allowed to do so where they wanted.
What companies and the local authorities in my constituency object to most of all is the continued uncertainty about the future size of Crawley. The town is fed up with being treated like a concertina, contracted at one moment and expanded the next. At the same time as being refused permission to expand, Crawley industry is expected to train and employ thousands of men from London.
It was originally proposed that 4,600 houses should be built by December, 1970. It is now clear that this programme will not be carried out on time and that it will have to be extended by at least another two years. Meanwhile, sales of the Commission's new houses have not been going well; in fact, they have been rather sluggish. What, then, is to be the future size of the population of Crawley? It is now 63,000, and I read in the Crawley Observer this week that it will be 81,000 in 1971 and 93,000 in 1981. It could be well over 100,000.
Is it true that the expected demand for labour which has been in creasing by 11 per cent. per annum for some years will fall to 5 per cent.? Is it true that the supply of labour will exceed the demand by 1971? If so, what will happen about the employment of Londoners coming down to my constituency?
All these questions must be answered soon. I understand that the research team from Sussex University has completed its report, which is now in the hands of the West Sussex County Council. It is essential that the report be made available to the public as soon as it reaches the Minister's hands. There has


been far too much uncertainty already. Worse still, essential planning decisions by the Horsham Councils have been held up until: he Minister makes his decision about the future size and shape of Crawley. This is intolerable. Why should the proper development of Horsham be held up because nobody knows what to do about Crawley? There are times when planning becomes a crazy fetish, and this is one of them. The people of Horsham are interested in the future of their town, as they have been for centuries, and are not concerned in the speculation on the future size of Crawley.
Planning procedures, which are properly the responsibility of the county council, are being increasingly assumed by the Government, and it is time this process stopped. Moreover, it is clear that the services so admirably provided by the county council are in danger of being overstrained because of the cut back in Government expenditure. This applies particularly to the schools. Proper provision must be made for more class rooms in Crawley so that the children do not have to be ferried backwards and forwards across the town.
I am sure that both the people of Crawley and Horsham want the evidence before the Minister makes up his mind about the future of Crawley. This is really what democracy is supposed to be about. There is far too much consultation between so-called interested parties and not enough evidence on which the public can express its views.
As for the Bill, I am in favour of extending the amount available, provided the advances are self-liquidating. The Birmingham University survey has shown that the majority of people in new towns wish to own their own homes. It should be the Government's objective to en courage them to do so. I hope that the next Conservative Government will do just this.

8.41 p.m.

Mr. Eldon Griffiths: It is a particular pleasure to follow the able and lucid speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Horsham (Mr. Hordern). I had the pleasure of living very near Crawley for a number of years and saw the beginnings of its development. I think that on the whole it has been, among our new towns, a considerable success, but I know from

personal experience that the problems my hon. Friend has described so accurately need to be tackled and have not been tackled.
I should like to begin by pointing to the enormous sum we are discussing. I usually speak in the House on matters concerning foreign policy, when almost invariably we are concerned with saving£18 million in the Gulf or perhaps£30 million in Aden, and there are great debates on such matters. But tonight, with only about 10 hon. Members present, apart from those on the Treasury Bench, we are about to authorise the lending of an additional£300 million, raising the total loan investment here to£1·1 billion, if I may use the American term. My estimation is that pro rata the 10 hon. Members taking part in the debate are lending£30 million per head. Nothing could so clearly demonstrate the enormous scale of the new towns operation now under way.
Many hon. Members have said that the new towns as a whole are a success. I doubt that. I do not consider them to be a failure, for thousands of young families have achieved a greater degree of happiness because of the new towns than they would have without them. To that extent, the new towns are a human success. But we, as a Legislature, must concern ourselves with the expenditure of our fellow citizens' money. And when I consider the£1,100 million that have been spent and ask myself whether the increased happiness achieved by it is as great as could have been achieved if the money had been spent differently, I am not persuaded of the success of the operation.
Not now, but in future, I hope that the right hon. Gentleman can tell us what has been the cost per family moved and rehoused under the New Towns Act. I suspect that it is extremely high and certainly higher in terms of the best use of our national resources than the cost of people rehousing themselves by privately moving from our congested cities to other parts of the country. In terms of cost effectiveness, we ought to have some idea of the cost per family moved and whether it is an acceptable cost in our present financial situation.
I want to refer to the experience in my constituency of the expanding town


of Haverhill. It tells a story of what happens when a small town tries to expand against a national economic tide. Haverhill has grown very rapidly over the last few years to a population of about 12,000. In that process, many young families from London have achieved a better life. They have brought a vitality to our countryside. Many have achieved something really worth while.
I stress that because the right hon. Gentleman may well have seen only a week ago a television programme, produced by the B.B.C.s "Man Alive" team, which portrayed Haverhill as a town in crisis. The film was well researched. I make no complaint about the care with which the team sent to Haverhill tried to do its job. I am bound to say, however—and I hope that the Minister, if he saw the film, will agree with me—that the end product was a hopelessly biassed and unfair misrepresentation of the realities of Haverhill on the ground.

Mr. K. Robinson: I did not see the programme, but I have read the script very carefully and I am sure that I would have reached the same conclusion as the hon. Gentleman if I had seen the programme.

Mr. Eldon Griffiths: Then I need not labour that point further.
We do, of course, have problems in Haverhill and I want to mention some of them. Our social and recreational facilities have not kept pace with the expansion of the population. There is an imbalance between public and private housing. We simply do not have enough private housing and it will be very difficult to get enough. We have problems, too, of overcrowded schools and inadequate hospital provision.
We also have the whole problem of "them and us"—the gap between the older country folk who live in south Suffolk and the new families from London who sometimes find it difficult to integrate with a country environment.
But our biggest problem is the one which the hon. Member for Epping (Mr. Newens) so eloquently described—lack of industry, lack of satisfactory employment for the people who have come to Haverhill from London. This lack of

industry and jobs has again and again held back the development of the town.
The result is houses standing empty. Some have had to be let to the United States Air Force. The urban district council gets a very good rent for them, but I cannot believe that it was the policy of the Government, when these houses first were built with British tax-payers' subsidy, that they should end up providing housing for the United States Air Force in Britain.
Then, too, we have many men who have come to Haverhill and, for one reason or another, the jobs they came to fill have either disappeared or have disappointed them. Consequently, many men are working at trades below the skills they were trained for.
We also have problems of relatively low wages and relatively high rents. We have the difficulties of men who, unable to find satisfactory employment in the town, have to travel long distances to find jobs elsewhere. I cannot think of anything that so clearly contradicts the whole point of an overspill programme than men having to travel, in some cases back to London whence they came, to find employment.
There is, too, the separation of man and wife that sometimes arises when a young man has to go elsewhere for his work, and there is the problem, which has been exacerbated over recent years by rising prices, of many young families being unable to make ends meet.
The point I wish to convey to the Minister is that young families arriving in Haverhill, hoping for something brighter and better in their lives, find all too often that employment and social facilities are not adequate. They ask why it has happened this way. One reason, of course, is the national economic difficulties, and I will make no party points about those. A second reason is the development area policy. It is difficult to know how to balance the advantages which should be given to areas of high unemployment in the North-West and Scotland against the needs of the expanding towns, particularly in the South-East.
I hope that the Minister, who will have studied the Hunt Report, will recognise that it is very difficult to persuade an


industrialist to come to a town such as Haverhill. these days. The industrialist sees that by going to the North-West or Scotland he can get the regional employment premium, full return of S.E.T., if he is in a service industry, better investment allowances and no difficulties about an I.D.C. When he reckons up the advantages of going to such a development district—and hon. Members who represent these districts will be grateful for them—against what are frankly the financial drawbacks of going to a town in the South-East, his decision all too often is not to go to the expanding towns. So we have the paradox of more people arriving in Haverhill and not enough industry to employ them.
There is also a lack of co-ordination between Government Departments. I need not elaborate this—the Housing Ministry persuading people out of London, the Board of Trade not able to provide sufficient industry, the G.L.C. asking people to move, British Railways closing the stations in the town as soon as they arrive.
Lastly, there is the threat, and it is a threat to a small town like Haverhill, of larger expansion starting to move for ward more rapidly. I recognise the advantages to the country of the expansion of Ipswich and Peterborough, which one day will be great cities; but I hope the Minister will recognise that a small struggling town, such as Haverhill, seeing these big expansions on either side of it, is bound to worry lest the available industry will be drawn into those larger expansions.
I conclude with these simple thoughts. I hope that Haverhill can be made a success. It must be made a success, for too much is invested of public money and human happiness for Haverhill to be allowed to fail. But to make it a success it will be necessary to persuade more industry to go to Haverhill by providing the same sort of attractions—not all, but some of the attractions—that are avail able to development districts. Secondly, Haverhill may have to slow down the pace of its expansion, to be a little less ambitious, to learn to walk before it runs.
The Minister himself has moved from co-ordinating the many diverse activities of doctors and hospitals and now has the enviable task of co-ordinating the many activities which go into creating

new towns. I hope that he will accept an invitation to come to Haverhill and see these problems for himself and help us to put them right.

8.55 p.m.

Mr. W. R. van Straubenzee: My hon. Friend the Member for Bury St. Edmunds (Mr. Eldon Griffiths) ended with a very agreeable invitation to the Minister. However excellent Haverhill is, and it is extraordinarily fortunate in its representation in the House, the Minister would be wise to start his visits by coming to the best of the new towns, Bracknell, which I have the honour to represent and about one or two of whose problems I wish to speak.
I want to start by respectfully welcoming the Minister to these debates. Those of us who have, over the years, been concerned with new towns are a happy band of pilgrims on the whole. We are not looking upward to any particular objective, yet awhile at any rate, and he will find us, I hope, an agreeable and social crowd. I say that by way of introduction because I have one rather hard thing to say, I have a very real com plaint, and I wanted to start on a friendly note to the Minister.
Up to now I have generally been bothering him perpetually on the problems of Broadmoor. Now I look forward to rather more sane conversations. I was particularly grateful to him for a charming reference at the start of his speech to two very distinguished noble Lords. At a time like this, 21 years after this very remarkable experiment has proved itself, it is right that the Minister should cast our minds back to men now no longer young.
There can be few people more massive in stature than Lord Reith. The important thing to remember, and this is brought out by the Bill, is that it is really he and his colleagues who beat out for us the concepts of the corporation in this context. It was they who did it and the noble Lord, Lord Silkin, who was the first Minister to actually put it into operation in subsequent Governments. Life moves on, and it is pleasant to cast our minds back to people who have worked in this sphere before.
The hon. Member for Epping (Mr. Newens) in an interesting speech made the point that it was very important to


have local representation on boards of development corporations, and so it is. I have just had a most disagreeable experience about which I complain firmly to the Minister. I understand perfectly clearly that he is not responsible personally, and I am sorry that I had not appreciated that the Joint Parliamentary Secretary, the hon. Member for Widnes (Mr. MacColl) would not be here. I had fully expected that he would be here in the normal course of duties, and am sorry to raise this matter in his absence. Nevertheless, I do so very firmly.
My new town stands somewhat exceptionally within the rural district council area of Easthampstead, that is to say, that it is part of a large rural district council. It is not the only new town in that position, but it is somewhat exceptional among the London overspill new towns in that connection. Very wisely, successive Ministers have brought on to the board of the development corporation representatives of that council. Its present chairman, who is an extremely able and very charming lady is a member, as is a gentleman who lost his seat at the last elections, but who still plays a valuable part on the corporation's board.
I make no complaint about the fact that both are members of the Labour Party. I make no complaint in the sense that at the time they were appointed they were probably perfectly fair appointments. This spring a vacancy occurred and I took an opportunity at an early stage of corresponding with the Joint Parliamentary Secretary. I made the very reasonable point that there has so far been only two appointments for my local council, both from the Labour Party.
I made no complaint about that, but ventured to suggest that it would be reasonable, in ordinary circumstances, for the third appointment, which I hoped he would make from the council, to be from a member of my own party. I thought that it was even more reasonable when I drew to his attention, as delicately as I could, the fact that, as in so many other parts of the country, the Conservative Party made sweeping gains at the local elections, so that the local council concerned is now overwhelmingly Tory-controlled.
I first raised this matter in the summer—in fact, on 19th July. It was done

on a confidential basis. I have the correspondence here. The Joint Parliamentary Secretary corresponded with me in confidence, and I maintained his confidence. Much later, on 7th November, I received a letter in which the hon. Gentleman announced that the Minister had decided to make a third appointment, and a third member of the Labour Party was appointed.
This is grossly unfair. The Minister cannot possibly sustain that decision on any basis whatever. If he tells me that he did not have any appropriate names, that is not so, because I ventured to draw his attention privately, on the same confidenital basis, to possible names. He certainly had the opportunity to make inquiries. If he thought, as he might well have thought, that the person concerned should live within the designated area, he had a range of names from which to choose.
I complain about this matter in the strongest possible terms. It has done the greatest harm to confidence in the Minister's impartiality. It is plainly unreason able that all three members of the corporation should come from one party, whichever party that is. This is a particularly unhappy affair because, in my view, the working relationship between the local authority and the corporation is one of the most important factors in this business. As the Report published yesterday shows, these relationships have been at risk throughout the country. I am confident that if the present Minister had been in charge of the operation this would not have happened. I am burningly angry about what has occurred.
Hon. Members, and particularly the hon. Member for Epping, have referred to the future ownership of the new towns. I say in a friendly way to the hon. Gentleman that he must read, mark and care fully learn the lessons in this fascinating Report, The Ownership and Management of Housing in the New Towns, by Mr. Cullingworth and his distinguished colleague. It has quite a lot to teach all of us, but it has more to teach hon. Members opposite than hon. Members on this side of the House.
Mr. Cullingworth and his colleague were not asked to make a specific recommendation; that I understand. But they certainly point the way. They have extracted most vividly the fact that there is an


overwhelming demand in the new towns which were inquired into for a great extension of owner-occupation. They draw the attention of the House to the appalling problems of finance in handing over housing to new town corporations. Finally, they draw attention to the fact that the structure of local government is undergoing reform.
Therefore, I wish to give this word of advice to the Minister. He is in the fortunate position that his party has moved away from the old doctrinaire attitude to the industrial assets of the new towns. It is no good the hon Member for Epping nodding to me happily and perhaps wishing to remind me that this remains Labour Party policy as adopted at its party conference. That makes me certain that the Government will not follow the recommendations of their party conference. It is on record—and we need not argue about this now, we can do it elsewhere in more convivial circumstances—that the Labour Party has moved away from the ownership of the industrial assets of new towns by local authorities.
The question now centres on what should happen to the housing assets. That is the point at issue. What the fascinating Report by Mr. Cullingworth shows us is that we should be considering a variegated system of ownership and that we most certainly should not be bound to hand over monolithically to one local authority all the housing assets of a new town. I have been very firm about this. I have actively contested an election in my new town on this issue on one occasion. I have no doubt of the feelings of my constituents on this matter. Only recently I accepted an invitation to address my local council on this whole matter.
My view has remained unchanged. In "shorthand", it is, first, that effective estate management of assets of this size and complexity requires that detached quality which comes from an indirectly appointed body; secondly, that, at least as they are at present constituted, I do not believe that many of the local authorities can command staff of the standing required in this administration; and, thirdly, I am deeply distrustful of the overall monopoly position which would result from the total ownership of the housing assets of a new town by a local elected council.
I do not know whether the hon. Member for Epping is leaning forward out of sheer interest in what I am saying, or whether he wants to interrupt me. If he does, I will gladly give way to him. Apparently, he is merely fascinated by what I am saying.
For those reasons, I am quite certain that we shall see policy move away from the eventual handing over the housing assets of the nation in its new towns to local elected councils. I am sure that this latest Report is one more nail in that coffin. I hope that the Minister will find it possible to say something about this Report. I make no complaint that he did not in introducing the Bill; he had much to say. I understand clearly that the Report was published only yesterday, but we can intelligently guess that the right hon. Gentleman has had it on his desk for a considerable time and I am sure that he will have been well able to make up his mind about it. It is a matter of great importance. We do not often have the chance of talking about new towns and it would help immensely to know the Minister's view.
May I, however, draw his attention particularly to a small section of the Report at page 147, which deals with the activities of building societies in new towns. I declare a very indirect financial interest, but the tables there shown of the activities of the building societies in new towns present a very depressing picture for those of us who believe in the extension of house ownership.
For example, in the case of my new town of Bracknell, Table 47 shows that in 1966 there was only one building society branch office and one agency in the whole town. The Minister will know that it shows that whereas a much higher percentage of people have access to building society facilities throughout the country as a whole—one for every 27,000 persons is the ratio for a building society office generally—in new towns the ratio is 1 to 76,000. While we all understand that the ratio would be different, it seems to me to be a very great difference in deed.
The Minister is urged in the Report to hold discussions with the building society movement to see whether the facilities of that great movement could not properly be made available much more widely in new towns. This is a


detail but I hope very much that the right hon. Gentleman may feel able to follow up that recommendation.

Mr. Newens: I would like to correct the hon. Member and say that I was not leaning forward because I was fascinated by his speech, but waiting for him to deal with the point, which he left aside, of the relationship between the number of houses built for owner-occupiers and the number of houses built for tenants.
I wanted to ask the hon. Member, in view of his remarks, whether any of the people who write to him or approach him at his advice bureau complain that there are not sufficient houses available for them to buy in the town and whether the number of those people exceeds the number who approach him because they cannot get a house to let.
I assure the hon. Member that in all my new town experience—and I pride myself on being an active constituency Member—I have not had one approach by anybody to say that he could not buy a house in the new town, but I have had columns of people waiting to see me and I have received numerous letters regularly from people who cannot get a house to let. Surely, this indicates where the real need is.

Mr. van Straubenzee: I do not for one moment question the assiduity of the hon. Member. I will answer his question. Yes, I have an appreciable number of constituents themselves at present tenants of a new town corporation who are most anxious to buy the properties in which they live, or other similar property. Recently, I have not had opportunity of doing so, but, of course, I have had a very considerable number of people coming to see me who would themselves like to be tenants of the new town and who generally—I am generalising about a large number—are people who, under the present rules, which rules are, in my opinion, right, are not eligible to be tenants of a new town corporation or to buy property in the new town because, in my case, they do not come from the greater Metropolitan area. It is these people who have often been to see me. They see this great housing bank in the immediate area and they would very much like to be part of it if they could.
I can only testify as I find. I believe the evidence of this Report, which is, after all, totally impartial. None of us can possibly say that this is a Tory plot and all the rest of it.

Mr. Newens: Nobody has said so.

Mr. van Straubenzee: Nobody has said so, but I think it is as well to say that before somebody does say so. No body can possibly say it is anything of that sort. The evidence given in it is overwhelming and I can only say, of my new town, that it accurately reflects what people think.
What it teaches us on this side of the House, if I may say to my hon. Friend the Member for Hemel Hempstead (Mr. Allason) who is leading us at present, is that we have got to look at variegated occupancy and ownership in new towns. What it teaches hon. Members opposite is that the concept of handing the totality of the housing over to the council is blown sky high, if we accept the evidence of this Report. [Interruption.] It would be curious if the hon. Member and I were to agree. We must leave it in the Christmas spirit.
I was drawing to a conclusion when I was interrupted, the House will be relieved to hear. I genuinely believe that this concept of the new town corporation is a very remarkable one indeed. I think that it has been valuable that we have been able, in the context of adding substantially to the loan powers of these corporations, to look back over the history of these years. I am sorry to have had to inject a personal note of sharp complaint. I do not retract for one moment. I must take the opportunity of making it. But I wish the Minister personally and individually well in the splendid task he has of guiding these towns into the future. At least, I wish him well for the comparatively short time he will have politically to do the job.

9.14 p.m.

Mr. James Allason: The House is grateful to have had the opportunity for a wide debate on new towns, which, after all, represent a very considerable investment by the State. I should like to join in the right hon. Gentleman's tribute to the noble Lords, Lord Silkin and Lord Reith,


and to everyone who has put so much effort into the new towns over the past 21 years.
The right hon. Gentleman has, I believe, taken over full responsibility for the co-ordination of the problems of the new towns, although a certain amount of doubt was thrown on that by my hon. Friend the Member for Wokingham (Mr. van Straubenzee). It would be helpful, therefore, if the right hon. Gentleman could confirm that he is entirely responsible now. We welcome him to a very agreeable club, as we welcome the hon. Member for Accrington (Mr. Arthur Davidson) from today. As has been mentioned by the hon. Member for Epping (Mr, Newens), we have a Parliamentary group of hon. Members who are interested in new and expanded towns, which today goes up from 30 members to 31. We look forward to a consider able number of discussions with the right hon. Gentleman. 
The Bill authorises the advance of a further£300 million for the continuing development of new towns. Whilst we do not always approve of Government spending, this is expenditure which we on this side of the House fully support. We hops that this further slice will be used to best advantage, and I will return later to this point.
As the right hon. Gentleman has said, in 1966 an increase was authorised from£550 million to£800 million, and it is now necessary to increase this to£1,100 million. This is not surprising in view of the need for new towns, remembering the probability of the population expansion of 20 million by the year 2000.
It is a great privilege for me to have in my constituency what everyone in this Chamber will agree is quite the best new town, Hemel Hempstead, of the first generation, which has now grown up and has solved many of the problems which beset new towns. The hon. Member for Bury St. Edmunds (Mr. Eldon Griffiths) was suspicious about the cost of buildings in new towns. I can tell him that after 15 years, and therefore one-quarter of the way through amortisation, Hemel Hempstead owes£40 million to the Treasury, but it has housed 11,000 families, and therefore the investment represents less than£4,000 per family. As I think everyone would agree, this is a well worthwhile investment, not just for a

house but for all the facilities that go with it, a complete town surrounding the house. The ideal of Ebenezer Howard of combining the attractions of the country side and the amenities of the town has been worthily captured in our new town, but towns still growing have many difficulties.
The hon. Member for Epping mentioned Government co-ordination. The first matter to be considered is the location of new towns, and this involves regional planning. Straight away we are involved with the Department of Employment and Productivity, the Board of Trade and the Ministry of Housing and Local Government. Those Departments are all concerned to produce homes where they want industry to go. This is a matter of placing growth points. We must recognise that new towns are growth points. and the hon. Member for Accrington need not be too worried about the idea of a new town coming into his area; it will be an attraction and of great benefit, I can assure him.
Growth points do sometimes get out of hand. The third London airport, for example, is likely to attract an ultimate population of one million, wherever that airport is. Tremendous co-ordination is required in the first place for putting down a growth point, and it must be in a place where the Board of Trade wish to see employment. During the course of the debate there has been consider able complaint about the Board of Trade policy. The Board of Trade are obsessed with unemployment in developing areas, but it is not much good creating a new town and then preventing industry from going there.
Many hon. Members spoke on that subject, among them my hon. Friends the Members for Runcorn (Mr. Carlisle), Ludlow (Mr. More) and Bury St. Edmunds and the hon. Member for Epping. Examples have been given, and I could give others—for example, a firm which intended to go to a new town but which was approached by the Board of Trade and persuaded instead to go to a development area; and a United States firm which wished to go to Bracknell, which was refused an industrial development certificate in Bracknell by the Board of Trade, presumably with the intention of forcing it into a development area, and which went instead to Brussels. We


have heard about the proposals for Tel ford and Redditch. Is the Minister satisfied that firms are leaving Birmingham in sufficient number to move to Telford and Redditch? All the evidence which we have heard this evening has been to the contrary.
Hon. Members have also discussed the selection of those moving to new towns. The tendency has been to attract key workers, who are not necessarily those in the greatest housing need. During our last debate on the Second Reading of a New Towns Bill on 28th October, 1966, the present Minister for Public Building and Works, who was then the Parliamentary Secretary, described the formation of the London Overspill Liaison Group. That is reported in column 1588 of the OFFICIAL REPORT. The intention was that virtually unskilled people would be taken to new towns and would receive training so that they were upgraded to semi-skilled workers and thus became entirely acceptable to new town employers. May we have a report on how that scheme is progressing?
A number of examples have been given of the need for transport facilities to be planned at the same time as the new towns are planned. We have heard the example that both Harlow and Telford lack main road communications with the rest of the country—and such communications are essential. Basildon, it appears, has no railway station. That demonstrates the need for co-ordination within the Government at the very beginning of planning.
My hon. Friend the Member for Bromsgrove (Mr. Dance) told the House of the great need for hospital facilities in Redditch, although Redditch is not the only place where hospital facilities are unsatisfactory.
Hon. Members have also spoken of the need for continuity of planning, with out sudden stops, and of the utter lack of decision. It is difficult for Brackneli, which is planned to take 28 years to complete. It started in 1952, and the present intention is that it will go on developing until 1980. Harlow, it seems, has been waiting for over four years for its population target, and Crawley still awaits its population target. It is frustrating and infuriating to try to work out employment policies when there is no decision from

the Government. The decision on Telford was announced this year, but it had been under consideration for several years before the announcement. Most hon. Members have complained about high rents. My hon. Friend the Member for Bromsgrove spoke of rents of£6 10s. a week, which included rates, garage and central heating, but excluded the subsidy. We must prevent high rents from acting as a disincentive to people going to new towns, particularly if employment prospects are uncertain, as they are in some new towns.
Rents in these areas tend to be high for historic cost reasons; for example, there is no basis of older housing which was built at lower cost to cushion the production costs of new houses. We have heard of this difficulty from those who represent not only the second generation but the first generation of new towns. One hon. Member who represents a first generation new town urged the Minister to place all rent rises before the Prices and Incomes Board. Although there is£1 difference in the average rents charged for first generation new town houses compared with second generation ones, they are both too high and there are indications that further increases are to come.
Perhaps the logical answer would be to pool all new town rents, with both first and second generation new towns benefiting from such a pooling arrangement. This would obviously suit the second generation new towns well, but since I represent a first generation new town I trust that such a course will not occur. Our rents are already high enough.
The Cullingworth Report was published yesterday with that unerring sense of mistiming usually shown by the Minis try of Housing. It was submitted, we learn from the preface, on 30th January, 1968, but the Ministry chose to hold up publication until precisely one day before this debate. This was calculated to pre sent the maximum possible difficulty to hon. Members wishing to take part in this discussion and who would have consulted interested bodies which might have wished to make comments.
I warmly welcome this brilliant Report which marks a milestone in the history of new towns. It moves further away from Ebenezer Howard's original idea which depended entirely on the lease hold system. He believed that the assets


of the community should remain with the community—that nobody should take anything out of it and that there should be only leaseholds—so that increases in land values would benefit the community as a whole. We have moved a long way from that concept, and this Report marks another step forward.
The New Towns Act, 1946, recognised that a self-contained community could not provide subsidised housing and that Government enterprise was necessary. In the latter 1950s we found a growing desire for owner-occupation, and that trend has continued. Owner occupation within the leasehold system is no longer possible, because the Government, and this is another milestone, have granted leasehold enfranchisement. The whole basis of the garden city concept has thus disappeared.
The Cullingworth Report shows that we must recognise the need for private investment in new towns, and that includes the ownership of freeholds. My hon. Friend the Member for Horsham (Mr. Hordern) has mentioned the striking figures given in the Report revealing the desire for more owner occupation. It shows that more than three-quarters of the people in the new towns believe that Rouses should be offered for sale. The percentage is 77 per cent. in Crawley and 78 per cent. in Stevenage, 16 per cent. and 17 per cent. in Crawley and Stevenage give a qualified "Yes", and only 9 per cent. in Crawley and 6 per cent. in Stevenage believe that houses should not be offered for sale to tenants. That seems to be quite overwhelming evidence.
On the other hand, when we turn to page 125 of the Report we see the really pathetic performance of the new towns in meeting this demand. Table 34 shows that in most new towns roughly 4 per cent.—sometimes 5 per cent.—of the owner-occupied houses have been provided by the New Towns Commission or the development corporations, with the honourable exception of Welwyn and Hatfield, where 10 per cent. have been provided. I regret to say that in Hemel Hempstead the figure is 2 per cent.
The experience of building for sale by development corporations has been unhappy, and the answer is that what has been offered has not been what the customer wants. I believe that very

many customers for owner occupation come to a new town, start their families there and have considerable expenses and, as a result, they want to pay rent to begin with. After some years they may move into a higher income bracket. They have their luxuries around them already, and they think of buying. But they may not wish to leave when they buy. There fore, a little pool of houses specially built for sale will not be a particularly attractive proposition. The customer may well want to purchase the house in which he already lives.
The New Towns Commission and the development corporations have their reasons for not selling, and these are mentioned in the Cullingworth Report. The first is the problem of management. They say that there are great difficulties in the control of estates, but I am glad to see in page 31 the remarks of the hon. Member for Hemel Hempstead in 1963 in this House are quoted, and very nicely destroy this objection.
Another objection is the loss of a renting pool of houses. This was the great objection advanced by the hon. Member for Epping, but what must be remembered is that sale to an existing tenant does not remove a house from the pool. The tenant goes with the house, and although the pool is smaller, we still have a satisfied customer. We must also remember that Government-announced policy is that 50 per cent. of those living in new towns should be owner-occupiers. When a development corporation says that it cannot afford to reduce the renting pool it is speaking against existing Government policy.

Mr. Newens: Would the hon. Member be in favour of placing some restriction on the resale of a property which was acquired by an existing tenant so that the property should not be sold to all comers? If he does not agree to this, people coming from outside to buy property could jump ahead of those who may have been waiting for a long time for a rented property.

Mr. Allason: This is mentioned in the Cullingworth-Karn Report, which says that it is very unlikely that outsiders would move in, but there can be restrictions of the sort suggested. The reason for objection to loss of a renting pool is that there is loss of subsidy. It


infuriates a development corporation that if it parts with a house it has to part with subsidy. This is one up for the Chancellor of the Exchequer. It is a poor reason, which is not publicly given, that subsidy is saved for the Exchequer through loss from the renting pool.
The most effective argument against sale is that put forward in the Cullingworth Report and in the latest Report of the Commission for New Towns that tenants cannot afford it, no matter what they want. An example is given in the Cullingworth Report. On page 141 it suggests that an income of£1,600 a year for the head of the family is required for the purchase of a house costing£4,000. That is no reason to say that the house should not be offered. This is on the theory that one should not pay more than a quarter of one's income on housing costs, but it is perhaps a little grandmotherly to insist precisely on that quarter. There may be other members of the family bringing in a substantial income. If the family decides that it can afford the deal, it should be allowed to do it.
A£4,000 house would be fairly ex pensive. A grade 1 terraced house in a new town which has been in existence for some years would stand in for a considerably less sum. Proportionately the income needed would be lower. There is the third factor to consider which makes a family really want to buy its house and be prepared to put a lot into doing so. That is the inflation factor. House values are rising at present at a rate of 10 per cent a year. Anyone who starts to purchase his own house would be wise to get his loan as soon as possible rather than wait for a year when the cost will be 10 per cent. higher. This is recognised as a real incentive, amply shown in the Cullingworth Report, to owner-occupation.
I quote from page 154 of the Report:
… there is a vast amount of public capital tied up in new town housing. In the current (and, on present indications, in the foresee able future) context of a severe shortage of public capital, any policy which results in a release of this is to be welcomed…. Private capital needs to be attracted on an increasing scale.

Mr. Eldon Griffiths: Does not my hon. Friend agree that, if that had been done,

we should not be debating this gigantic figure this evening?

Mr. Allason: I was coming on to say that I want to see this£300 million stretch a long way. So far we have spoken of the possibilities of people in new towns being allowed to buy their homes. This will contribute considerably to stretching the assets of new towns. There is a need for a political decision, which thereafter must be vigorously en forced, to allow private capital to flow in to redress the balance of excessive Government investment in new towns.
The Cullingworth Report indicates the possibility of whole neighbourhoods being developed by private enterprise. The present tendency in new towns is for rather small packets to be left available for private enterprise building. I would like to see us move on to whole neighbourhoods being developed by private enterprise. This would probably upset the corporations, with their preconceived ideas. They would be worried that the results might not fit in with the nice, tidy design of new towns which corporation planners like. However, planning control exists to ensure good development.
Private enterprise can play a very large part in developing new towns, as it is doing in America. The Americans have great expertise in planning a new neighbourhood or new town so that it is attractive for people to live in. Artificial lakes are created. The increase in the value of the building land alongside the lake more than pays for the cost of creating the lake. People then have a most attractive place to live in. Equally, the cost of a golf course is paid for by the increase in amenity value of the houses alongside it. The golf course is designed so that the maximum number of houses look on to the course.
My hon. Friend the Member for Northants, South (Mr. Arthur Jones) wants to go the whole hog and have a complete new town built by private enterprise. This is an attractive proposition, but the difficulty is the need in any new town for subsidised housing. My hon. Friend suggested that it could be provided, at any rate for a time, by the private enterprise developer undertaking to charge cheap rents. However, there is no reason why the present method of subsidised housing should last for ever. When we change over to subsidies for


families and not to the public enterprises owners of housing, this will be a very much easier proposition.
New town profitability depends on the increasing land value as the town develops. By rigid refusal ever to sell a commercial or industrial site, corporations are hoarding scarce capital. We should consider also the possibility of the sale of freeholds of industrial and commercial sites. This would be heresy to development corporations, which are deliberately taking Government capital, tucking it away, and seeing the results back years later.
Obviously, there would be considerable objection if the sale were too profitable to private enterprise, but it is not beyond the wit of man to reach a fair level of price, possibly in two stages, the first half of the price being paid initially and the second half being paid when the site has become profitable, subject to an in crease clause. It is possible to fix a price on which the public will develop the new town and make a satisfactory profit, and at least the public would have the cash value back quickly because the sites would go to private enterprise which has the cash assets.
There is a huge investment by the Kodak company in my town of Hemel Hempstead, but Kodak could afford to purchase the freehold of its site. There could thus be money available which at present has to be raised by the public in the manner which we are discussing tonight.
The hon. Member for Epping spoke about the future of the New Towns Com mission, and I understood him to wish to transfer all assets to the local authority. I think that the Prime Minister has said the latest word on this subject when, speaking at Stevenage on 1st July, 1967, he said:
Without anticipating the Parliamentary programme. I want today again to assert the Government's view that local authorities, the statutory housing authorities, should eventually be responsible for managing all publicly owned housing when a new town is fully developed. The non-housing assets, that is, the industrial and commercial assets, raise special problems which are very complex and difficult and which need to be examined very carefully. The Government will have to decide, therefore, in consultation with all the interests concerned what is the best way to deal with the complex of problems relating to the disposal of new town assets when the

time comes to dissolve the development corporation.
That is an albatross round the Minister's neck, and I do not envy him. He has to face the worries of the staff of the New Towns Commission which are quite unallayed. The Prime Minister talked about consultations with the interests concerned. One would have thought that the New Towns Commission was one of the interests involved, and the Commission says at page 19 of its Report:
No indication has yet been given of the likely date of any new legislation. The Commission have provided your Ministry wth a certain amount of relevant information and are ready to join in discussions when required to do so.
Perhaps, since that Report was written, the discussions have taken place but, if they have, they must have been rather quiet discussions.
The Cullingworth Report balances nicely the advantages and disadvantages of housing transfers. One of the disadvantages was mentioned by the hon. Member for Billericay (Mr. Moonman) and other disadvantages were mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for Wokingham. But Cullingworth ends with a rather sly dig by reminding us that the local authorities which are so anxious now to put their hands on new town housing are likely to change considerably as a result of the RedcliffeMaud Commission's report. Any idea that legislation should be brought forward within the lifetime of the present Parliament to hand over assets to a local authority which is about to die seems peculiar.
The Minister announced the Government's intention to develop a new city at Chorley-Leyland, and it is particularly exciting that it will be a linear city. I hope that he will remember the need for private enterprise to help the Government in this development, because it: is private enterprise that has the capital. The time has come to look closely at the financing of new towns, and to recognise that Government resources are too limited to have enough of a good thing, while the untapped resources of private enterprise are available for the task.
New towns are a success socially, in providing excellent housing conditions, and financially. Even in these days of high interest rates, therefore, they should


not be hampered by shortage of Government capital.

9.51 p.m.

Mr. K. Robinson: With the leave of the House, I should like to answer some, and I hope most, of the major points which have been raised. I am grateful for the spirit in which the Bill has been debated and the constructive nature of almost all the contributions.
First, may I respond to the request of the hon. Member for Hemel Hempstead (Mr. Allason) and explain that I have taken over responsibility for new towns within the Ministry of Housing and Local Government under the general responsibility of my right hon. Friend the Minister.
A number of hon. Members have kindly invited me to visit new towns in their constituencies. It is my intention to visit all the new towns in England as soon as I can reasonably get around to them. I have already started; I have tucked two under my belt, and there is another to come in in a week or two.
A number of themes cropped up time and again throughout the debate. I should like to deal with them first and then with one or two particular issues raised by individual hon. Members. One question that came up frequently was communications, particularly roads. This matter is the responsibility of my right hon. Friend the Minister of Transport. I am sure that he will take full account of what has been said in the debate about main communications to and from new towns. I undertake to call his attention to this.

Mr. Allason: Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman did not take our point, which was that co-ordination is needed. It is no good saying that it is the responsibility of the Minister of Transport. We want a senior Minister to co-ordinate all these Government activities.

Mr. Robinson: If the hon. Gentleman will contain himself, I shall come to that. It is a bit much to be told that I have not dealt with a point before I have been speaking for more than about 45 seconds.
Co-ordination on new towns is already undertaken within the Government, and there is the closest co-operation between my right hon. Friend the Minister of

Transport, my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade and my Department in all these matters. The questions about main communications must obviously be drawn to the attention of my right hon. Friend the Minister of Transport.
The hon. Member for Bromsgrove (Mr. Dance) expressed anxiety about principal roads within the new towns. He may not appreciate what the arrangement is, be cause it has changed fairly recently. We now have a separate programme for principal roads in new and expanded towns. The programme is still part of the national roads programme, but a separate part. Within it, the Ministry of Housing and Local Government determines the priori ties. We do not think that new town building will be held up through any delays in constructing principal roads within the new towns. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will be reassured by that.
Another matter which has arisen, quite naturally, is the question of industrial development certificates. This, of course, is primarily a matter for my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade. I think that there is a general understanding of the difficulties he must have in balancing the claims of the development areas—which, under general Government policy, have priority, and rightly so—with the claims of the new and expanding towns because, as hon. Members have rightly said, these cannot succeed unless industry can be persuaded to go to them. Broadly speaking, my right hon. Friend performs this balancing act with considerable agility and great fairness, although I accept that there are new towns to which we would like to see rather more rapid movement of industry.
For example, the hon. Member for Hemel Hempstead asked, "Are firms leaving the Birmingham conurbation to go to Telford and Redditch? "I was about to say, "Yes" when he added, almost under his breath, "in sufficient numbers?" The answer is that I am never satisfied that the numbers are sufficient, but, nevertheless, firms are going there and the trend is not unfavourable.
Perhaps the issue most frequently referred to is that of new town rents and the allied subject of the Cullingworth Report. This is not altogether a simple and straightforward matter, but a certain


amount of hyperbole was used in some speeches. New town rents are no higher than those charged by many local authorities for similar homes. New town corporations already receive the same generous subsidies as do local authorities under the Housing Subsidies Act, 1967.
In addition, they receive grant under the New Towns Act according to a formula which ensures that most help, as much as;£30 a house, goes to those corporations without a big pool of homes over which to spread the cost of new building. As hon. Members have said, the nub of the problem is perhaps the size of the pool, over which rents can be spread. It is true that development corporations with substantial housing stocks operate rent rebate schemes. That is the answer to a good deal of what has been said about hardship.
I come now to the question of the timing of the Cullingworth Report. The hon. Member for Hemel Hempstead knows how long it takes the Stationery Office to publish a substantial document of this kind and that the date of this debate had to be postponed because of the statement made by my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer one Friday afternoon recently, just when we were due to come forward with the Bill. It is, therefore, purely fortuitous that publication of the Report and the Second Pleading of the Bill are occurring within a day or two of each other.

Mr. van Straubenzee: But the date of the Report is 30th January.

Mr. Robinson: Yes, and a good deal of consultation has gone on since then. I was being chided for allowing the Report to come out only one day before the debate. Most hon. Members agree that the new towns have been a success and most of them have accepted that it is a success of public enterprise primarily, and yet hon. Members opposite, almost with the same breath, have been crying out—

It being Ten o'clock, the debate stood adjourned.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Ordered,

That the Proceedings on the New Towns Bill, the Local Government Grants (Social Need) Bill and the Horserace Betting Levy Bill may be entered upon and proceeded with at this day's Sitting at any hour, though opposed.—[Mr. McCann.]

NEW TOWNS BILL

Question again proposed, That the Bill be now read a Second time.

Mr. Robinson: I was saying that, although it must be accepted that this is a success of public enterprise, the whole tenor of so many speeches from hon. Members opposite has been that we must reduce, curtail, hobble, the public part of the enterprise in order to give private enterprise a free hand. This has been implicit in what they have said. One hon. Member suggested that if only we did that with private enterprise, we would not have to have a Bill, because we would not need to raise£300 million. The fact is that this sum of money is calculated taking into account the considerable current involvement of private enterprise in the development of new towns in accordance with Government policy.
Apparently, in the eyes of some hon. Members opposite, the Cullingworth Report turned up as a sort of awful shock and surprise to the Government. In fact, it was commissioned by my right hon. Friend the present Secretary of State for Social Services when he was Minister of Housing because he wished to get at the facts. I think that it was my right hon. Friend, or conceivably his successor, the present Minister, who announced the Government's aim and objective that housing in new towns should split about 50-50–50 per cent. rented housing and 50 per cent. owner-occupied housing.

Mr. Hordern: Does the right hon. Gentleman accept the recommendation of the Cullingworth Report that the Government should assist tenants of development corporation houses to buy their own houses?

Mr. Robinson: As one of the hon. Gentleman's hon. Friends correctly


pointed out, there are no recommendations in the Cullingworth Report; it is a study. Its findings will certainly be thoroughly studied by the Government and will help us to determine our future action in connection with the ownership and management of housing in new towns.
The policy remains as the hon. Member for Hemel Hempstead quoted the Prime Minister—that management responsibilities will be transferred to local authorities in due course. It is true that the problems do not stop at the owner ship and management of housing and I must tell my hon. Friend the Member for Epping (Mr. Newens) that when it comes to industrial assets there are new and considerable complications which will need a great deal more study.
A number of hon. Members have mentioned membership of development corporations. My right hon. Friends and I were taken to task for not having sufficient local interest on development corporations. I was taken to task by the hon. Member for Wokingham (Mr. van Straubenzee) for having appointed a Labour member of a local authority in his constituency. I ought to explain to him that my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary could not be here tonight for reasons which, I am sure, the hon. Gentleman would appreciate.
When I was at the Ministry of Health, I had the duty of appointing members of hospitals boards. It was a duty which I took very seriously. I spent a lot of time over it and I never managed to please everybody. I sometimes wondered whether I was able to please even the majority. I am, therefore, well aware of the pitfalls of appointing members of public bodies, Government and semi-Government bodies.
I had one golden rule, which I think was a good one, and which I shall continue to observe in the context of my new responsibilities, and that is that I never gave reasons why I made an appointment or reappointed a member to a board. In this case, the hon. Gentleman has had a reply that my right hon. Friend felt that the gentleman in person was a suitable one to appoint, and that is as far as it is wise to go. As a general principle, we must find a reasonable balance of a number of factors when making these appoint-

ments to the corporations. Above all, we must find people who are competent, who are willing and able to give the time needed for the very responsible job of getting a new town moving.
Earlier, we had a speech from the hon. Member for Runcorn (Mr. Carlisle) who, having welcomed the central Lancashire new town announcement made today, expressed some anxieties about incentives. I want to make it clear that, under present policies, the new towns would offer no financial incentives to industry. It is true that the North-East Lancashire authorities expressed to me their anxieties that somehow, if the new town had difficulty in achieving its planned rate of growth and employment, the Government might make special incentives available.
I do not think that there are any substantial grounds for apprehension on that score. He said, and I entirely agree, that Runcorn is being developed faster than any other new town, perhaps in the world. I had the pleasure of being taken round the new town recently by the Chairman and General Manager and was very impressed with what I saw. He took my right hon. Friend to task for a decision which he reached about the designation of the Warrington new town. In particular he deplored the decision to include what I gather is part of his constituency in Cheshire within the designated area, against the recommendation of the inspector at the public inquiry.
The reasons the inspector's recommendations were rejected were clearly set out in the decision letter. It is quite wrong to suggest that there was a universal local objection. In fact, the county council concerned, the local planning authority, did not object to the designation Order when it was made. The important thing is that my right hon. Friend did accept the recommendation of the inspector to exclude 525 acres of land in the Higher Walton area, also to delete 1,350 acres in the south and south-east of the designated area, and it was only in respect of these 1,200 acres that he found it necessary to differ from the inspector on the ground that this would enable an extra population of approximately 18,000 people to be accommodated in this part of the new town.
The inspector did not feel that it would be possible to reach the population tar gets without including this area. As the


hon. Gentleman knows, the decision is made now, and could not in any way be varied by my right hon. Friend.

Mr. Carlisle: I accept that the Cheshire County Council, regrettably, chose not to oppose this designation. With respect, the right hon. Gentleman is unfair when he says that this shows that there was not unanimous objection among those who lived in the area. Indeed, the inspector pointed out—

Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentle man has exhausted his right to speak. He may, however, make a brief intervention.

Mr. Carlisle: I am grateful, Mr. Speaker. May I put it to the Minister that it is wrong to assume, merely be cause the Cheshire County Council did not object, that the people who lived in the area were not unanimous in their objection?

Mr. Robinson: I do not know about unanimity. I have had a number of post cards of a similar nature recently—

Mr. Carlisle: Hear, hear.

Mr. Robinson: —of which the hon. Gentleman obviously has full knowledge.
My hon. Friend the Member for Accrington (Mr. Arthur Davidson), coming as he does from North-East Lancashire, gave a welcome to the new town proposal in central Lancashire and the ancillary action proposed for the area, part of which he represents.
I wish to say one thing about today's announcement with which, as a Lancastrian, I am particularly gratified to be associated. At the meeting in Manchester on 4th December there was complete unanamity on one point, and that was the need for a quick decision after what had inevitably been a long process of consultation. I promised a decision in weeks, not months, and, although the issues were considerable, priority has been given to balancing all of them by the Government, both within the Department and between Departments. In this way, we have been able to announce the decision just over a fortnight from the date of that meeting. My hon. Friend was concerned about the road situation in his constituency. I have undertaken to pass on his views to my right hon. Friend.

Mr. Arthur Davidson: Since I have given a cordial welcome to the deliberations on the new town, perhaps I could have a final word. Could my right hon. Friend reassure us by saying that the needs of North-East Lancashire, which he recognises, will at all times be given equal weight by the Government to the needs of the new town?

Mr. Robinson: If my hon. Friend reads the terms of my right hon. Friend's announcement today, he will find that they accord exactly with his wishes. These two matters have been considered in parallel by the Government.

Mr. More: rose —

Mr. Speaker: Order. We have a lot of business ahead of us.

Mr. More: Since I spoke in the debate, I have had a letter from the Clerk of the Salop County Council which suggests that, in spite of the agreement arrived at when I took the deputation to the Minister, they still have no date for a meeting; no agreement as to the expenditure which is to be discussed; and no agreement as to the procedure pro posed for discussing it. I hope that there will be more speed in getting together with my county council.

Mr. Robinson: That does not give me very much time to make the necessary inquiries about something of which I have just heard for the first time, but I undertake to look into the matter raised by the hon. Gentleman.
I have dealt with most of the points raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Epping. However, in one part of his speech, he stressed something which is very close to my heart and that of my right hon. Friend, namely, the need for public participation in planning. This is implicit in the recent Town and Country Planning Act. We are extremely concerned that, particularly in connection with the new towns, the population shall be told about developments which are likely to affect their future.
The hon. Member for Northants, South (Mr. Arthur Jones) was also in favour of a private enterprise new town. I pro posed to tell him, but his hon. Friend told him, about the private enterprise new town which is under construction in the United States. This will turn out


to be a somewhat different social organ ism from the new towns which we are building. I do not think that it is possible to have a new town of the kind which we need financed entirely by private enterprise. However, I repeat that private enterprise is becoming more and more involved in the development of our new towns.
I thought that my hon. Friend the Member for Billericay (Mr. Moonman) slightly misunderstood the meaning of the passage in the Cullingworth Report about normality. I simply took it that what the Report said was that one of the facets of normality of a town is that it has a scatter of different forms of house ownership, and it was in that respect that most new towns were abnormal.
My hon. Friend the Member for Ince (Mr. McGuire) displayed once again his great prejudice against industrialised or system building. I certainly will not, like my predecessor at this Box on the last occasion of a New Towns Bill, chastise my hon. Friend for his prejudice, but I strongly dissociate myself from it. The fact that one such scheme ran into difficulties in the new town of Skelmersdale could not be regarded as a criticism of system building as a whole.
The hon. Member for Horsham (Mr. Hordern) raised a matter, in somewhat testy terms, I thought, about the future of Crawley. He probably knows that my right hon. Friend approved extensions of the housing programme in Crawley of 4,600 houses to meet expected demands for labour. This was authorised in 1966 at the request of the Crawley Urban District Council and supported by the New Towns Commission.
I remind the hon. Member, however, that Crawley is not now a new town planned under the New Towns Act by a development corporation. Its ultimate size is a matter for the county council in the first place under its development plan procedures which apply to the county generally. The hon. Member must, there fore, direct his questions to that quarter.

Mr. Dance: Before he concludes, can the Minister give an assurance to people in mixed towns—that is, a combination

of the old and the new—that the older part of the town will not be neglected in favour of the new?

Mr. Robinson: I take the point. It is desirable that there should not grow up any kind of antagonism where there are older communities on the periphery or close to new towns.
The hon. Member for Bury St. Edmunds (Mr. Eldon Griffiths) gave a very fair summary of the difficulties which, we acknowledge, Haverhill is at present suffering. It is true to say that the biggest problem is the lack of industry. I am looking into this. Certainly, when opportunity offers, I will accede to the hon. Member's invitation to come and look for myself.
I think that I have dealt with most of the points that have been raised by hon. Members during the debate. It has been a very helpful debate. I am grateful to see a continuation of all-party support for the concept of the new town and I think that the House can rest assured that this£300 million, large sum though it is, will be wisely spent, in the interests of the people of the country and a better life for them.

Question put and agreed to.

Bill accordingly read a Second time.

Bill committed to a Committee of the whole House.—[Mr. McCann.]

Committee Tomorrow.

NEW TOWNS [MONEY]

Queen's Recommendation having been signified —

Resolved,

That, for the purposes of any Act of the present Session to raise the limit on advances imposed by section 43 of the New Towns Act 1965, as amended by subsequent enactments, it is expedient to authorise any increase in the sums which under or by virtue of any Act are to be or may be issued out of the National Loans Fund or the Consolidated Fund, defrayed out of moneys provided by Parliament, remitted, or paid into the National Loans Fund or the Consolidated Fund, being an increase attributable to provisions of the said Act of the present Session raising the said limit to£1,100,000,000.—[Mr. K. Robinson.]

LOCAL GOVERNMENT GRANTS (SOCIAL NEED) BILL

Not amended (in the Standing Commit tee) , considered.

Motion made and Question, That the Bill be now read the Third time, put forthwith pursuant to Standing Order No. 55 (Third Reading).

Mr. Arthur Lewis: Mr. Arthur Lewis (West Ham, North) rose —

Mr. Speaker: Order. The Third Reading is not debatable under the new Orders of the House unless notice of objection to it is given on the Order Paper and signed by six Members. The Question for Third Reading can be voted against.

Question agreed to.

Bill accordingly read the Third time, and passed.

HORSERACE BETTING LEVY BILL

Second Reading deferred till Tomorrow.

STANDING ORDERS (STANDING COMMITTEES)

Ordered,

That the Standing Orders relating to Standing Committees be amended, as follows:—

Standing Order No. 60 (Nomination of standing committees):—

Line 6, leave out 'twenty' and insert 'sixteen'.

Standing Order No. 61 (Scottish Standing Committees):—

Line 45, leave out 'twenty' and insert 'sixteen '.

Line 48, leave out 'twenty' and insert 'sixteen'.—[Mr. McCann.]

ALBERT MEDAL

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. McCann.]

10.22 p.m.

Dr. Reginald Bennett: I rise on behalf of 34 holders of the Albert Medal all of whom are well into their sixties and some of whom are very elderly indeed. I rise, incidentally, on behalf of some 35 hon. and right hon. Members of this House, some of whom have managed to be present on this occasion. I think that all of us are hon. Friends in this regard.
I will briefly and rapidly go through the history of this matter, as it comes to the present juncture which I believe to be unsatisfactory. The medal was established in 1866. It was known as the civilians' V.C. Initially it was founded for saving life at sea but by later warrants of 1867 and 1877 it was extended to Service men and also for heroic deeds done ashore.
The originating warrant said, in the language of Queen Victoria:
We are desirous that the Albert Medal should be highly prized and eagerly sought after and are graciously pleased to make, ordain and establish the full Rules and Ordinances for the government of the same, which shall from henceforth be inviolably observed and kept.
Then in 1909, when King Edward VII was inaugurating the Edward Medal, it was stated:
Before 1907 conspicuous gallantry in civil life could be recognised by the high but rare distinction of the Albert Medal. The Albert Medal remains the reward for acts of the highest devotion and courage in civil life. His Majesty's purpose in establishing the new medal is to provide recognition for action of exceptional bravery in dangerous callings, which, owing to the rarity of the award of the Albert Medal, might otherwise have been unrecognised.
In 1923, the Board of Trade Journal said, on 8th February:
As the Victoria Cross is the first of all British decorations for self-forgetting valour in the face of the enemy, so the Albert Medal is the first of all British decorations for self-sacrifice in saving, or attempting to save, life by land or sea. The standard of personal heroism which it recognises is the highest possible, and the measure of the sacrifice of self is the improbability of individual survivance. The Albert Medal, following the

precedent of the Victoria Cross, is sometimes awarded posthumously, and is then presented by His Majesty personally to the next-of-kin. A man may die in the winning of it, and always before he can win it must have looked very closely into the face of Death.
These words make the intention absolutely clear. It ranked with the Victoria Cross at investitures and at Coronations, even at the latest Coronation in 1953, and this is as intended.
So far, so good, but meanwhile things had happened which has led to a con fusion, if not a spoiling of the high honour that is in this medal. In 1922 King George V instituted the Empire Gallantry Medal, which was for great but rather lesser herosim, as is shown by the fact that it was awarded twice as frequently.
For instance, in 1930 H.M.S. "Devonshire" had a tremendous turret explosion, and Marine Streams and Lieut.-Commander Maxwell-Hyslop, the father of an hon. Member of the House, went into the turret while the cordite was still burning, and were helped there after by Midshipman Cobham and Able Seaman Niven. These four were all decorated. Marine Streams and Lieut.-Commander Maxwell-Hyslop received the Albert Medal and Midshipman Cobham and Able Seaman Niven received the Empire Gallantry Medal.
Since this period a steady decline has set in, and I will instance it as it occurs. In 1940 the George Cross was instituted by King George VI, and the holders of the Empire Gallantry Medal were ordered to exchange their Empire Gallantry Medal for the George Cross. Some demurred because it appeared to place their otherwise junior award senior to the Albert Medal. In 1949 something happened which has never yet been fully disclosed. I am informed that there was a private letter from the Prime Minister to the Home Office and to the Admiralty, dated 27th November 1949. I do not know what was in it, or anything about it, other than that it exists; but I quote from a book called "Orders Medals and Decorations in Britain and Europe" of 1967, written by Mr. Hieronymussen, which is a strangely foreign-sounding name, in which he says in the section on this medal:
In November 1949 King George VI gave orders for the cessation of the Albert Medal


in gold, and the restriction of the award of the Medal to posthumous cases where the standard of gallantry was not up to that for the posthumous award of the George Cross, but was nevertheless of a very high standard.
Here is the first consciously announced slipping of the standard of the Albert Medal below that of the George Cross.
In Major Laurence Gordon's book "British Orders and Awards" of 1959, there is a passage which reads:
The most extraordinary thing about this medal is, in my opinion, the low position it holds in the order of seniority of awards for bravery.
Indeed, the orders of its precedence show a great reduction in its standing, as far as I and the holders of the medal can see.
The 1963 edition of the book, "Ribbons and Medals" by Taffrail, 1916, shows the order of wearing ribbons and medals. It shows the order of wearing which is not necessarily, he says, the precedence conferred by the statutes. The Victoria Cross is shown first, the George Cross second and the Albert Medal thirty-third, after the Order of St. John.
Another book which is a standard reference work, "Titles and Forms of Address," under the heading "Order of Decorations and Honours," shows first the Victoria Cross, second the George Cross and fortieth the Albert Medal, after the Royal Red Cross (Class II). These seem to me to be very serious presumptive downgradings of this medal, and the matter was brought to a head in 1965 when the George Cross holders got the Victoria Cross annuity, and went to reunions and other functions in common with Victoria Cross holders, but Albert medallists were no longer included.
Many of us have been pressing for a reinstitution of the honour implicit in the Albert Medal, and since 14th November last the Prime Minister has been good enough to agree that the annuity should be bestowed on them. This is admirable, but three out of the three holders who wrote to me there after offered to decline the money be cause the slight remained on them. The Prime Minister said on that occasion that he thought it was not fitting or helpful to discuss the status. I believe that it is most fitting and very helpful

to do so, because the present situation is unfair to them, and unwarranted, be cause where is the warrant? There should be a warrant amending the original warrant of 1917 which is still in force. There is no warrant, and this matter has to be put right.
My hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Lewes (Sir T. Beamish) has, unfortunately, been taken ill, and is not able to take part in this debate. He had a number of points which I should like very much to have been able to address to the House on his behalf, but I shall not have time to do so. I think that all hon. Members know of the active and zealous part which my hon. and gallant Friend has taken in trying to right what I believe to be a wrong.
I repeat that 35 right hon. and hon. Members have approached me on this matter, and I ask the Government to do the big thing. If the Empire Gallantry Medal is equal to the George Cross, the Albert Medal is a greater decoration than either. Will the Government recommend to the Crown the exchange of the Albert Medal for the George Cross also? It would set an end to any of these tricky and awkward situations affecting people who are now much too old to take any action on their own behalf. If that cannot be done, for reasons of which I am not aware, could the Government instruct the Committee on the Grant of Honours, Decorations and Awards to inquire into these anomalies, because I believe that they have to be put right.

10.33 p.m.

Mr. James A. Dunn: I take great pleasure in acknowledging the Parliamentary comradeship which exists in the campaign which has been waged on behalf of the holders of the medal. It is true, as the hon. Member for Gosport and Fareham (Dr. Bennett) said, that within the ranks of those who hold this award there is a depth of feeling about its status, and each time I speak to those who hold this medal it becomes clear that they would like to see the restoration of the status to what they understand it to be.
It would be wrong if I did not immediately acknowledge to my hon. Friend who is to reply to the debate, and to my right hon. Friends and the authorities who may have to decide in the


final analysis on the representations made tonight, that the problem is a difficult one. To measure the courage and sacrifice of individuals is a task which I should not like to have imposed on my self, and I say in all sincerity that the intention is not to impose the task on my hon. Friend, or on his right hon. Friends, either.
There is this genuine feeling that this award for gallantry has been down graded, and I use that word advisedly, because that is the word that is constantly used, even though in a letter dated 1st December, 1966, the Home Secretary wrote to the Chairman of the Albert Medal Association:
… for the past 17 years we have been using the Albert Medal for a purpose which equates it with the George Medal
and that the award was
confined to those cases in which the standard of gallantry was not up to that required for the posthumous award of the George Cross.
I ask the Government to refer this matter to the Standing Committee and to let the Committee deal with the anomalies which we think have been created. One thing is certain: this is a band of honourable and gallant gentle men who, by the very nature of things, is diminishing in number. The award will probably never be made again to any person who is still alive, and the gallantry can be recognised by another form of honour, as has already been indicated. I urge my hon. Friend to take this matter to the Standing Committee, because the problems which we posed to him are most difficult. I hope that his sympathetic understanding and encouragement in the representations made to the appropriate Committee will be helpful in the finalisation of this problem.

10.36 p.m.

Mr. William Hamling: I am grateful for the opportunity to take a minute of the time of the House, with the permission of my hon. Friend, who has kindly agreed to make it possible for me to have this chance to support what was said by the hon. Member for Gosport and Fareham (Dr. Bennett). I underline some of the words which he used. He said of the medal that this is a high and rare distinction which has been awarded to

men who faced danger with the improbability of survival. There can be no higher sacrifice than this—that gallant men should take action which for all they knew would lead to their certain death. This medal cannot be regarded as a decoration which has a lower status than that of the George Cross.
I hope that my hon. Friend will convey to his right hon. Friend the feeling of the House that we ought not to be hasty in our judgment and that we ought to reconsider the status of the Albert Medal. The hon. Member put forward what I think is a satisfactory solution—that holders of the Albert Medal should be able to exchange it for the George Cross. Then, I think, these gallant old men would feel that their medal was given the status that its original donor intended it to have.

10.37 p.m.

The Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Elystan Morgan): I very much hope that the House will not think me churlish or unchivalrous when I say that I am rather sorry that the hon. Member for Gosport and Fareham (Dr. Bennett) has chosen to raise this subject on the Adjournment. The Government do not consider that by so doing he has per formed any service to that very gallant body of men, the holders of the Albert Medal, whose interests he and my hon. Friends so sincerely represent.
Of course, the matter which they have at heart is one of recognition and not of financial reward. The Government have never thought otherwise. That recognition has already been amply given in the announcement made by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister on 14th November in a Written Answer to a Parliamentary Question by the hon. and gallant Member for Lewes (Sir T. Beamish). That reply was to the effect that annuities previously reserved for holders of the Victoria Cross and the George Cross were to be extended also to surviving holders of the Albert and Edward Medals. I impress the point that that is a very exceptional mark of recognition and one which might well have been allowed to speak for itself. I plead that there is nothing to be gained, either


in dignity or in good feeling, by attempting to refine upon it or to press the standards of comparison further than they can reasonably be taken.
The Albert Medal is unquestionably an award of great distinction, given, as has been said, to men who have, in effect, given their lives and, by some freak or fluke of fortune which they had not calculated, had those lives returned to them in some cases, and in others not. It is, as we have heard, one of the earliest gallantry awards to be instituted. It was established more than 100 years ago for gallantry in saving life at sea, only a few years after the Victoria Cross, and it antedates the George Cross by nearly 75 years.
With the passage of time there have been many changes, as one would expect. First, the Albert Medal, which was in two classes—a gold and a bronze award according to the degree of gallantry—was extended to the saving of life on land as well as at sea. Then certain more specialised awards, such as the Edward Medal for gallantry in the mines or industrial employment were separately instituted. Other changes were made on, or following, the introduction during the last war of the George Cross and the George Medal.
As we have heard, since 1949 only the bronze award of the Albert Medal has been retained, and that for posthumous grant, in circumstances in which the George Medal, which cannot be awarded posthumously, would otherwise have been recommended. It is part of the argument of the hon. Member for Gosport and Fareham that what happened in 1949 represented a downgrading of the Albert Medal. It was not a decision that was challenged at the time. Nor is it a challenge that I propose to take up tonight. For reasons I shall explain, all comparisons of this kind are fraught with the greatest difficulties; and all the surviving Albert Medallists, on whose behalf hon. Members have spoken, received their awards before 1949.
The intrinsic merit of a gallantry award cannot, of course, be judged by the date on which the Order was first instituted, and judgment of the relative standing of an award becomes the more hazardous with the increase of specialist awards of various kinds. Taking the

position as it was before 1949, comparisons between the Albert Medal on the one hand and the Victoria Cross and the George Cross on the other are, in the strictest sense, impossible because the Albert Medal was a two-class award and the others have always been in a single class only.
I suspect that the memorandum from which the hon. Member for Gosport and Fareham read on the part of the Board of Trade referred to the Albert Medal in gold, and that there was no statement as to the Albert Medal in bronze in that connection. Thus, the question in regard to the junior class of the Albert Medal, in bronze, must obviously be rather more doubtful.
It is perfectly true, as the hon. Gentle man said, that in 1940 holders of the Empire Gallantry Medal were required to exchange their awards for the George Cross, and that the Albert Medal was always regarded as at least equivalent in merit to the Empire Gallantry Medal, to which it was senior in precedence. This was a consideration which the Government had very much in mind in deciding to extend annuities to surviving holders of the Albert and Edward Medals.
However, it is not in itself conclusive of the question which the hon. Member for Gosport and Fareham has raised. The short answer to this whole issue is that there is not a pattern of tidy logicality to the question of precedence as between one award and another. As long ago as 1943 the Advisory Committee on the Grant of Honours, Decorations and Medals, while placing the Albert Medal in gold in the very highest class of gallantry awards, along with the Victoria Cross and the George Cross, equated the Albert Medal in bronze with the George Medal and not with those higher awards.

Dr. Bennett: I cannot check it, for I have not the papers with me, but are we to assume that the Albert Medals given simultaneously with the Empire Gallantry Medals were always gold and would be superior to the Empire Gallantry Medal which is now the George Cross?

Mr. Morgan: No; awards in both classes were made. There was not a great deal of doubt up to 1940, but


events since then have caused the issue to be clouded. There was no down grading in 1949 but the application of a standard which had been accepted six years earlier. Also, in 1940, the George Cross was placed next to the Victoria Cross and before the Orders of Chivalry in precedence and order of wearing, while the Albert Medal retained its previous position immediately following the Orders of Chivalry.
Obviously there have been inconsistencies in all this, which is not at all surprising in view of the difficulties of comparison which I have explained. They were created at different periods, created in the first instance for gallantry in different circumstances, and they were created by different monarchs. The merits can be argued both ways and every way, but to attempt to do so now can be only damaging, which in this field would be particularly deplorable. Surely hon. Members can accept that the Government have now done justice to these

brave men and that it cannot in the least help them, or the holders of other awards, to traverse the whole of this disputable ground again. There comes a stage when this argument can be only demeaning and that stage has now been reached.
I ask hon. Members to believe me when I say that there are doubts which cannot be fully resolved and in refusing to pursue the comparison as suggested the concern of the Government has been to avoid in any way diminishing the value of the recognition given to all holders of the Albert Medal, without distinction of class, in the statement recently made by the Prime Minister. It is precisely because the Government have the best interests of Albert Medallists at heart that they intend to leave that statement on the record unqualified as it is without being drawn on to more uncertain ground which might give rise to qualifications.

Question put and agreed to.

Adjourned accordingly at twelve minutes to Eleven o'clock.